An Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-04-2011, 10:38 PM
An Argument
So I'm interested to hear what you guys think of this particular argument for creation: Make a mechanism that can reproduce itself using only the elements available around it. If you succeed and can say truthfully that such a mechanism can come about by chance, only then will you have a basis for saying that there's a possibility that there's not a Creator. Thanks for your thoughts! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2011, 10:48 PM (This post was last modified: 20-04-2011 11:00 PM by Observer.)
RE: An Argument
Don't forget to count in a time-lapse so long, that an average human can't wrap is mind around without having to revert to metaphors and comparisons...

(The age of the world is a book, the first 1000 pages nothing happens. The next 500 pages there is "life" in the form of bacteria. The last 10 pages have mammals. Only the last sentence talks about humans... briefly)

Then... Count In a number of locations so big the an average human can't wrap is mind around without having to revert to metaphors and comparisons...

Well...
I think you get the point on the number of chances that would happen...
The number is so big that an average hu...

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2011, 10:53 PM
RE: An Argument
Wait... so you want us (the Creator) to create a mechanism that can self-reproduce... and if we can that's evidence against creationism?

Call me crazy, but I'm thinking that argument is the opposite of itself.


And as far as the elements of the universe happening by chance, hasn't the LHC at Cern demonstrated exactly that?

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2011, 11:04 PM
RE: An Argument
(20-04-2011 10:38 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Make a mechanism that can reproduce itself using only the elements available around it. If you succeed and can say truthfully that such a mechanism can come about by chance, only then will you have a basis for saying that there's a possibility that there's not a Creator. Thanks for your thoughts! Big Grin

Nature did that about 3 and 1/2 billion years ago. Just because you refuse to look up the data doesn't mean it didn't happen. Go do some real research.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2011, 11:15 PM (This post was last modified: 20-04-2011 11:21 PM by BlackEyedGhost.)
RE: An Argument
(20-04-2011 10:48 PM)The_observer Wrote:  Don't forget to count in a time-lapse so long, that an average human can't wrap is mind around without having to revert to metaphors and comparisons...

(The age of the world is a book, the first 1000 pages nothing happens. The next 500 pages there is "life" in the form of bacteria. The last 10 pages have mammals. Only the last sentence talks about humans... briefly)

Then... Count In a number of locations so big the an average human can't wrap is mind around without having to revert to metaphors and comparisons...

Well...
I think you get the point on the number of chances that would happen...
The number is so big that an average hu...

Infinite chance is useless without proof of possibility.
(20-04-2011 10:53 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Wait... so you want us (the Creator) to create a mechanism that can self-reproduce... and if we can that's evidence against creationism?

Call me crazy, but I'm thinking that argument is the opposite of itself.


And as far as the elements of the universe happening by chance, hasn't the LHC at Cern demonstrated exactly that?

Lol, I'm glad you realize that. As for the LHC thing, I'm uninformed, so I'm not certain what you're talking about right now.
(20-04-2011 11:04 PM)No J. Wrote:  Nature did that about 3 and 1/2 billion years ago. Just because you refuse to look up the data doesn't mean it didn't happen. Go do some real research.

I don't refuse to look it up. Feel free to help me find what I'm supposed to be looking for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2011, 02:37 AM
RE: An Argument
The whole argument is a big bowl of illogical poo.

The only thing "creating a mechanism that can reproduce itself using only the elements available around it" can accomplish is proving that human beings can create a "mechanism that can reproduce itself using only the elements available around it."

At no point does the experiment test for a sentient deity existing outside of nature who has a moral code and magic powers.

And the LHC (Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator) at Cern successfully recreated a mini Big Bang. And before you regress into "well who put the particles in the universe for the Big Bang to happen?" Realize that you would no longer be talking about creationism, you would be talking about a deity playing with his science kit and things going terribly wrong.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
21-04-2011, 02:58 AM
RE: An Argument
(20-04-2011 11:15 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Infinite chance is useless without proof of possibility.
True...
You got me! Confused
*I'm hit! MEDIC!* Smile


I need to look deeper into this...
For now I am just going to have to say that that question is why I'm an agnostic atheist.
But as Buddy Christ says:
Quote:At no point does the experiment test for a sentient deity existing outside of nature who has a moral code and magic powers.
nor does it acknowledge the God of the bible or any other religious writing.
If you read my signature below, you'll notice that I don't defy a deity, but I defy religious dogma and thus the worldly authority that is taken from such dogma.

+1 rep

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2011, 03:55 AM
RE: An Argument
I don't believe this... First of all, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! Second, you are way too uninformed to be asking questions like that, if you don't know about history, biology, physics and LHC, why don't you first educate yourself, than start arguments like this one? If you haven't noticed, people here are very well informed about everything, but it is a bit hard to start explaining to you all the basics, before we can even start to argue about the things you are interested in. And may I ask, why did you leave that other thread you started on this forum, we all were very eager to hear your side of the story after all of us gave you solid arguments and proofs...

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2011, 06:57 AM
RE: An Argument
(21-04-2011 03:55 AM)Filox Wrote:  I don't believe this... First of all, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! Second, you are way too uninformed to be asking questions like that, if you don't know about history, biology, physics and LHC, why don't you first educate yourself, than start arguments like this one? If you haven't noticed, people here are very well informed about everything, but it is a bit hard to start explaining to you all the basics, before we can even start to argue about the things you are interested in. And may I ask, why did you leave that other thread you started on this forum, we all were very eager to hear your side of the story after all of us gave you solid arguments and proofs...

What's not to believe? I think that BlackEyedGhost just wants to discuss something else. No big deal.
There's an old thread around with a long discussion about the absence of evidence quote. Some argue that it's NOT evidence of absence, and some argue it IS. I say it is, and here's why. We are talking evidence, not proof. Just because there's evidence for something doesn't mean it's true. Likewise with a lack of evidence. If my white towel has dark marks on it, it's evidence that the towel is dirty. If there's no marks on it. that's evidence it's clean. Neither, however are proof. The dark marks are only one piece of evidence. It may be that the towel was previously stained, and is in fact clean. (Now we've discovered that there's evidence of a previous incident that made the towel dirty) On the flip side, with no dark marks, we have a lack of evidence that the towel is dirty, so we conclude the towel is clean UNTIL we discover evidence to show otherwise. The towel could be soiled with a clear or white substance, such as milk that spilled on the counter. We don't see it, but if we feel it, we'll find evidence that the towel is actually soiled. It's important to remember that evidence isn't proof.
I see no evidence there's a god. That lack of evidence is enough for me to conclude there is no god, until I see evidence that tells me differently. Therefore absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

BlackEyedGhost,

I agree with Buddy. There's just nowhere in this argument that tests for the existence of a creator. I think what Filox is getting at (and I agree) is that this argument assumes one solution MUST be correct, since the other solution presented is so unlikely. The problem is that the mechanism happening by chance, however unlikely, is no less likely than an invisible man in the sky. It is, in fact, MORE likely, since we have evidence of it.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2011, 07:41 AM (This post was last modified: 21-04-2011 07:50 AM by Kikko.)
RE: An Argument
Quote:So I'm interested to hear what you guys think of this particular argument for creation: Make a mechanism that can reproduce itself using only the elements available around it. If you succeed and can say truthfully that such a mechanism can come about by chance, only then will you have a basis for saying that there's a possibility that there's not a Creator. Thanks for your thoughts! Big Grin

Why should we create such a mechanism when we already have it? DNA and other replicators have mechanisms that they replicate (reproduce) themselves with, using only the elements avaiable around them. I can't see why we need an artificial molecule. (Btw, we already have created artificial virus's.)

Quick edit: If you think that the mechanisms are too complex to come about ''by chance'', think about this: Nature has no intelligence. For something to be complex, you first need an intelligent being to look at it. How complex a mechanism is depends on who's looking at it.

''A possibility that there's no creathor''? So you believe in a creator, so here's a classical question: Who created the creator?

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: