(January 5, 2010 at 10:22 am)scientist Wrote: I've been in major debates against atheists and time and time again, the fundamental flaws of atheism lead to their consistent defeat. This is expected because atheism's flaws are basic, fundamental in nature and cannot stand against good theist attacks.
One (among many) of their popular tenets is "Order can exist without an intelligence guiding it".
Atheists will resort to giving examples of order in nature (by their subjective definition of order). They would proceed to naming these. Some popular ones include snowflakes (viewed under a microscope), soup (yes, the contents in it as well), super novas, the structure of gems (diamonds, etc.), molecular structures, rainbow, etc.
The theists and atheists will debate back and forth - one in approval, the other one against it.
A scientist though, can be objective and use the scientific method to see the truth.
First, it is clear that the very notion of order can be subjective in nature. The structure of snowflakes, rainbow, supernova, and all mentioned examples are prone to subjective observation. Hence, the counter-attack by the theist debaters. Their strategy is built on this fact.
By the scientific method, a scientist will divide subjects into specific, separate groups for objective observation. Each group will be put into separate rooms and be provided a piano, and a full deck of cards.
Group A consists of rocks - this would represent inorganic objects.
Group B consists of insects, bees for example - this represents the animal kingdom
Group C consists of humans - this represents the human specie, the group w/ the highest intellect.
They will be observed for a period of time. The results:
Group C was able to achieve a high level of order. The piano was played (recognized as a musical instrument) and a house of cards was built. Intelligence that provided order was displayed of the highest among the three.
Group B displayed some order, though not in the level of Group C. A beehive was made, a structure with geometric design inside. Acceptable as order.
Group A, composed of inorganic objects displayed zero order, no activity or even any movement made.
By the scientific method, we can conclude that inorganic objects are incapable of producing order of any kind without an intellgence/intelligent being guiding them.
The notion that inorganic objects, snowflakes, gems, rainbows, etc. by atheists are somehow capable of producing order by themselves is fundamentally flawed.
Only intelligent beings, controlling inorganic objects can make these objects arrange into order as the scientific method proves.
If an inorganic object (rocks in our example) cannot do any movement or order by itself, then all inorganic objects will have to share that characteristic.
Arguing that snowflakes, supernova, etc. are capable of order is a viiolation of the "special exception rule", and definitely goes against the laws of the scientific method.
Peace.......
Please note that you are supposed to introduce yourself in the introduction section before you start posting. It is considered polite form here as they ask you to do this.
Relative to the substance, or lack thereof, of your post, all your experiment proves is that intelligent beings can do things that non-intelligent beings or inanimate matter cannot do on their own. It proves nothing regarding order. You could also do an experiment where the same things are placed in a room, heated until everything melted and then cool the material down to solid form. Some of the inorganics might prove to produce more order, such as crystal structure, whereas the humans would probably form an amorphous solid mass. Should one then conclude that inorganics produce more order?
