So your an Athiest

[AAA]

What do you mean by "nothing"? Can you describe a state of nothingness? Do you have examples of nothing? If not then how can make any assumptions of what nothing can do or what nothing can produce?

Nothing would be the absence of matter, energy, or time. But I'm not the one who believes that nothing has creative properties. It is irrational to think that nothing can produce everything. It seems like a reasonable assumption that the universe required some form of energy to be formed. I think I can safely say that nothing does not have that capability.

Your argument is one big argument from ignorance. You don't see how evolution and abiogenesis can work without a designer, therefore they are flawed. You assert this state of nothingness that you can't possibly know even exists, or that the universe even existed in that state.

Also, even if evolution and abiogenesis where proven false it wouldn't make your designer any more probable.
[/quote]


It is not an argument from ignorance. I understand the theory of evolution well, and it has a lot of problems. I'm not the only one who sees these problems either. You seem to think that going along with the theory automatically makes you smarter. Also, when I first talked about nothing bringing everything into existence, I was talking about what you likely believe if you deny an intelligent creator. I do not believe there was ever nothing.

And if evolution and abiogenesis were proven false, I think it would definitely support the idea that we were designed. It would make design a much more plausible explanation than unknown natural mechanism.

[ApeNotKillApe]

The trouble with these kinds of discussions is that I very often find it impossible to discern whether or not someone is actually being serious.

[AAA]

Sorry, I just didn't see your response. And I know it seems strange, but nothing bringing everything into existence also sounds strange. No matter what answers the question of the origin of matter time and energy is, it is bound to seem strange. I simply think that life and the universe reflects an intelligent designer rather than random chance.

Those who study biology and paleobiology have an answer to that, and it's not written in an old abook, it's told by observable fact. They observe how life evolved from the bottom up - for example, the eye began very simple in creatures which we are genetically linked to, as a simple photo-sensitive spot as a useful accident of reproduction. Subsequent generations made sight more complex in animals when such deviations, in ecologically stressful conditions. There is no evidence for design, only the cobbling up and occasional retrofitting of traits which were at some point useful, and eventual (but not timely) dumping of traits which are of no use (we've still got that damned appendix). It's undeniable that it's a bottom-up series of events, much the opposite of the top-down format which is required in all manner of "design". If you were paid as an engineer to design the human body, we would have to be a lot more sensibly and efficiently designed than we are now, or you would be out of a job! Sorry, but the more you look at that idea of design behind what life actually is on this planet, the much less it makes any sense.

Hey, Yahweh - YER FIIIIIRED!!!

Ok, I want to say again that I study biology and I think the evidence disagrees. I did not bring the old book into this, you did. I agree that observations should guide our belief. I also want to make sure that you realize that within the scientific community there is virtually never a consensus between what they think the evidence points to. Your story about the eye is just a story. The facts: organisms can sense light. We have organs that sense light. Your interpretation: one must have become the other over many generations. You have been taught in your biology class about the slight changes that occur, and they tell you that these changes can lead to entire new genetic information. Evolution operates by changing existing DNA. It has no good mechanism of adding new genetic information. The design of the human body is amazing. If there was an engineer alive today capable of designing something that efficient, they would be the most successful engineer of all time. The appendix still serves functions. It has functions in cultivating bacteria for your intestine to aid in digestion. It also may have immune functions. Life is not poorly designed. The simplest cell is more efficient and complex than anything mankind has done.

[Mr.wizard]

Nothing would be the absence of matter, energy, or time. But I'm not the one who believes that nothing has creative properties. It is irrational to think that nothing can produce everything. It seems like a reasonable assumption that the universe required some form of energy to be formed. I think I can safely say that nothing does not have that capability.

Your argument is one big argument from ignorance. You don't see how evolution and abiogenesis can work without a designer, therefore they are flawed. You assert this state of nothingness that you can't possibly know even exists, or that the universe even existed in that state.

Also, even if evolution and abiogenesis where proven false it wouldn't make your designer any more probable.

It is not an argument from ignorance. I understand the theory of evolution well, and it has a lot of problems. I'm not the only one who sees these problems either. You seem to think that going along with the theory automatically makes you smarter. Also, when I first talked about nothing bringing everything into existence, I was talking about what you likely believe if you deny an intelligent creator. I do not believe there was ever nothing.

And if evolution and abiogenesis were proven false, I think it would definitely support the idea that we were designed. It would make design a much more plausible explanation than unknown natural mechanism.
[/quote]

Well this is your problem your talking about what I believe when you don't know what I believe.

Wow, You have made a lot assumptions about what people believe based off of what they don't believe. Again Even if evolution and Abiogenesis where proven false it doesn't prove a creator.

Also, saying something can't be a certain way because you cant understand it, is by definition the argument from ignorance.

[AAA]

Your argument is one big argument from ignorance. You don't see how evolution and abiogenesis can work without a designer, therefore they are flawed. You assert this state of nothingness that you can't possibly know even exists, or that the universe even existed in that state.

Also, even if evolution and abiogenesis where proven false it wouldn't make your designer any more probable.

It is not an argument from ignorance. I understand the theory of evolution well, and it has a lot of problems. I'm not the only one who sees these problems either. You seem to think that going along with the theory automatically makes you smarter. Also, when I first talked about nothing bringing everything into existence, I was talking about what you likely believe if you deny an intelligent creator. I do not believe there was ever nothing.

And if evolution and abiogenesis were proven false, I think it would definitely support the idea that we were designed. It would make design a much more plausible explanation than unknown natural mechanism.

Well this is your problem your talking about what I believe when you don't know what I believe.

Wow, You have made a lot assumptions about what people believe based off of what they don't believe. Again Even if evolution and Abiogenesis where proven false it doesn't prove a creator.

Also, saying something can't be a certain way because you cant understand it, is by definition the argument from ignorance.
[/quote]

Sorry that I made those assumptions, but the point is that I don't believe there was ever just nothing.

The reason it isn't an argument from ignorance is because I do understand it, and it simply doesn't work. You can't just keep calling me ignorant if the science that I am telling you is true. If you have some hidden knowledge about the theory of evolution and how it leads to new genetic information then please share it. If you don't know the mechanism for increasing genetic complexity, then you are arguing from ignorance.

[dyresand]

It is not an argument from ignorance. I understand the theory of evolution well, and it has a lot of problems. I'm not the only one who sees these problems either. You seem to think that going along with the theory automatically makes you smarter. Also, when I first talked about nothing bringing everything into existence, I was talking about what you likely believe if you deny an intelligent creator. I do not believe there was ever nothing.

And if evolution and abiogenesis were proven false, I think it would definitely support the idea that we were designed. It would make design a much more plausible explanation than unknown natural mechanism.

Well this is your problem your talking about what I believe when you don't know what I believe.

Wow, You have made a lot assumptions about what people believe based off of what they don't believe. Again Even if evolution and Abiogenesis where proven false it doesn't prove a creator.

Also, saying something can't be a certain way because you cant understand it, is by definition the argument from ignorance.

Sorry that I made those assumptions, but the point is that I don't believe there was ever just nothing.

The reason it isn't an argument from ignorance is because I do understand it, and it simply doesn't work. You can't just keep calling me ignorant if the science that I am telling you is true. If you have some hidden knowledge about the theory of evolution and how it leads to new genetic information then please share it. If you don't know the mechanism for increasing genetic complexity, then you are arguing from ignorance.
[/quote]


Evolution works and  it is real one  only needs to look into the field of medicine.

[Mr.wizard]

If your saying you understand evolution and it doesn't work, proves you don't understand it.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Well it isn't easy to try to have a discussion on what there was before the universe that we can observe. You seem to think that an intelligent designer is illogical. I have a hypothetical scenario: if we one day created a computer simulation program that had conscious beings, and these beings started to realize that the space that they live in only works if the parameters to make the computer program work at very specific values. They then learn of their own complexity and begin to examine the digital code that makes up themselves. Is it irrational for them to conclude that they are living in a space that was designed?

This scenario is not so hypothetical. It is exactly the situation we are in.

Yes it is, it's very, very hypothetical - just because we happen to exist in a Goldilocks case of coincidental situations which are favorable to life does not in any way imply design. We are centered where we are around 1 of probably trillions or more stars in this universe, therefore the law of averages is not only favorable for relatively small number of variables to occur all at once - it mandates that this happens! If such conditions never developed here, then we would not be having this conversation, but interesting life (whether or not it speaks or writes) would certainly be on some other planet. Give any planet with such conditions enough time, and high intelligence will develop eventually.

Here's an example of how the statistics play out, which you can do yourself with the help of only 1,024 friends. I'm sure you've been in bigger crowds than this, even if you didn't know anybody, and if that many or more all flip a coin 10 times, it's guaranteed you will see somebody win that many consecutive times!

[AAA]

Well this is your problem your talking about what I believe when you don't know what I believe.

Wow, You have made a lot assumptions about what people believe based off of what they don't believe. Again Even if evolution and Abiogenesis where proven false it doesn't prove a creator.

Also, saying something can't be a certain way because you cant understand it, is by definition the argument from ignorance.

Sorry that I made those assumptions, but the point is that I don't believe there was ever just nothing.

The reason it isn't an argument from ignorance is because I do understand it, and it simply doesn't work. You can't just keep calling me ignorant if the science that I am telling you is true. If you have some hidden knowledge about the theory of evolution and how it leads to new genetic information then please share it. If you don't know the mechanism for increasing genetic complexity, then you are arguing from ignorance.

Evolution works and  it is real one  only needs to look into the field of medicine.
[/quote]


Well no it doesn't. I'm sure your thinking about antibiotic resistance developing in bacteria. Antibiotic resistance is often hijacked as an example of evolution, but it actually is not creating new genetic information. What happens is a small percent of bacteria contain a segment of pre-existing DNA called plasmids. These segments of DNA code for proteins that destroy the antibiotic molecules. Bacteria can then transfer this segment of DNA between each other and thus they gain this ability to survive. But it is not the creation of new information, it is just a brilliant design to keep populations of bacteria alive.

---

If your saying you understand evolution and it doesn't work, proves you don't understand it.

Ok then please inform me. You are right to doubt some random guy on the internet, but then maybe look up Steven Meyer or another doubter of evolution. These are professionals. Also it isn't fair for me to go off on all the science behind why it doesn't work when you've already said that you don't like biology. However, if you keep telling me that I do not understand the theory, I will give my reasons and it will be up to you to decide if you agree with them.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Those who study biology and paleobiology have an answer to that, and it's not written in an old abook, it's told by observable fact. They observe how life evolved from the bottom up - for example, the eye began very simple in creatures which we are genetically linked to, as a simple photo-sensitive spot as a useful accident of reproduction. Subsequent generations made sight more complex in animals when such deviations, in ecologically stressful conditions. There is no evidence for design, only the cobbling up and occasional retrofitting of traits which were at some point useful, and eventual (but not timely) dumping of traits which are of no use (we've still got that damned appendix). It's undeniable that it's a bottom-up series of events, much the opposite of the top-down format which is required in all manner of "design". If you were paid as an engineer to design the human body, we would have to be a lot more sensibly and efficiently designed than we are now, or you would be out of a job! Sorry, but the more you look at that idea of design behind what life actually is on this planet, the much less it makes any sense.

Hey, Yahweh - YER FIIIIIRED!!!

Ok, I want to say again that I study biology and I think the evidence disagrees. I did not bring the old book into this, you did. I agree that observations should guide our belief. I also want to make sure that you realize that within the scientific community there is virtually never a consensus between what they think the evidence points to. Your story about the eye is just a story. The facts: organisms can sense light. We have organs that sense light. Your interpretation: one must have become the other over many generations. You have been taught in your biology class about the slight changes that occur, and they tell you that these changes can lead to entire new genetic information. Evolution operates by changing existing DNA. It has no good mechanism of adding new genetic information. The design of the human body is amazing. If there was an engineer alive today capable of designing something that efficient, they would be the most successful engineer of all time. The appendix still serves functions. It has functions in cultivating bacteria for your intestine to aid in digestion. It also may have immune functions. Life is not poorly designed. The simplest cell is more efficient and complex than anything mankind has done.

I do sincerely hope you aren't a surgeon who I may need to rely on some day, for your grasp of the difference between fiction and reality!