An Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-04-2011, 02:53 PM
RE: An Argument
(21-04-2011 01:54 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  I think the best argument against an intellegent designer is how poorly designed we are. If there is a designer, he's not very intellegent!

For example, 10 signs of evolution in modern man

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 02:44 AM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2011 02:48 AM by Filox.)
RE: An Argument
@ BlackEyedGhost...

I see your point, and I didn't want to sound as if I'm telling you that you are ignorant. And as for man made mechanisms that reproduce themselves, try Googleing nanotechnology. Nano-materials are self growing, they collect molecules and add them together to make bigger nano-machines, or nano-molecules. They can arrange molecules and manipulate matter to make new nano-matter, so it is inorganic, man-made machine, that can reproduce itself, without human interaction. It is preprogrammed.

P.S.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, because if we don't have evidence for something, it does not have to mean it is not there, it can mean we simply have not the technology to see or discover it yet. Example: couple of hundred years ago humans could not fly and everyone sad it can never be done, and they also all believed in flat earth, they were wrong until they had a chance and technology to find out the truth. If we can not find something it does not mean it is not there, but if we find evidence that something is not there, then we have the proof of the opposite. It is a bit of a matter of perspective. And this can be used for God also, we don't have proof or evidence that he exists, but we (atheist) believe that we have a lot of proofs that He does not exist.

[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
22-04-2011, 04:15 AM
RE: An Argument
If your interested in learning and understanding more I recommend cdk007's 'Origins' mini series.




I also recommend Potholer54's 'Made Easy' series which starts off explaining the universe and cosmology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok

Both of these would be good starting points for you, they are short, to the point and clearly presented.
Let me know if your interested in more things like that on various topics. There are quite a few good ones out there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 05:57 AM
RE: An Argument
(22-04-2011 02:44 AM)Filox Wrote:  The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, because if we don't have evidence for something, it does not have to mean it is not there, it can mean we simply have not the technology to see or discover it yet. Example: couple of hundred years ago humans could not fly and everyone sad it can never be done, and they also all believed in flat earth, they were wrong until they had a chance and technology to find out the truth. If we can not find something it does not mean it is not there, but if we find evidence that something is not there, then we have the proof of the opposite. It is a bit of a matter of perspective. And this can be used for God also, we don't have proof or evidence that he exists, but we (atheist) believe that we have a lot of proofs that He does not exist.

I get your perspective on this. And it does make sense, but you have to remember, I'm not saying if there's no evidence for something that it means it's not there. I'm saying that is evidence it's not there. That's a very important distinction. Evidence is not proof. A couple hundred years ago we had evidence that people could not fly. Just because it's turned out that we can, in fact, use technology and fly doesn't mean it was unreasonable for people to think we couldn't. They used the evidence they had, and came to a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Just for the record, I don't believe we have ANY proof god does not exist. In fact I think that is impossible.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 09:31 AM
RE: An Argument
My main question to you this time blackeyedghost, is how humans constructing an organism in any way reflects random chance? If we were to deliberately make something then it would not be by chance. Your question simply does not ask anything near what you want out of an answer.

You would more or less have to ask if organisms ever appeared within an abandoned lab from the materials present (obviously mold). A deliberate action can't prove chance.

You may like this question but you're not asking for anything random at all.

As was discussed nano-machines are made to self replicate, that was something programmed into them, they are ordered to do it. In no way does this mean random chance.

The only way to prove life coming about from random chance is to observe it, which is what scientists are doing. No they don't get there when it starts, but at that time there were no scientists.

BuddyChrists LHC discussion about creating a big bang was a better explanation to you than you think though. It's through creating something like that, that you can observe origins of life. For it to be random the scientist cannot do anything really.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 05:57 PM
RE: An Argument
(20-04-2011 11:15 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  I don't refuse to look it up. Feel free to help me find what I'm supposed to be looking for.

http://www.youtube.com/user/djarm67#p/u/40/jTCoKlB0s4Y

http://www.youtube.com/user/djarm67#p/u/41/cosMs5EtktY

http://www.youtube.com/user/djarm67#p/u/42/CXhdu6HJpDg

http://www.youtube.com/user/djarm67#p/u/43/FfKY-gPp1Eo

http://www.youtube.com/user/djarm67#p/u/44/RNGCqa2iQsU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H0RXDrfy...re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwSARYTK...re=related

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
24-04-2011, 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2011 06:42 PM by BlackEyedGhost.)
RE: An Argument
@Stark Raving What evidence are you referring to? Also, do you know how the human body works? The human brain is more powerful than the world's best supercomputers and you say we're badly designed? Also, just because we exist a certain way now doesn't mean that's exactly what we were like at the time of Creation.
@Kikko the fact that we haven't successfully created one using intelligence implies a great deal of unlikeliness that it could have come about by chance. Also, a virus isn't self-replicating. It requires a cell to take the data and reproduce it. Your next argument is fairly nihilistic in that it destroys meaning, so I'll just ignore it. As for who created God, He has always existed.
@zermelofraenkal I realize this isn't the only way to disprove any given creator, but this is incredible support for a creator. In order to refute this you must either do what it says or disprove every possible creator. In other words you've made a somewhat moot point.
(21-04-2011 10:51 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Ok. This is in no way a condemnation of you, but I can't seem to penetrate this. It strikes me as interesting and I am passionate about replicators (and I assume that they have something to do with this), but I really can't figure out what you mean or what you're asking. Can I please ask you to dumb this down for me? I would appreciate it.

Basically I'm saying that without a creator you're stuck with stictly natralistic ideas. This means that mankind must be the result of random chance and things like evolution. However, crucial to evolution is self-replication. If an organism can't reproduce itself there's no possibility of evolution. So, if you can't get a self-replicating mechanism/organism by random chance, then there must be some form of creator. So my argument is that if we can't make a self-replicating device then there's even worse odds of such a device coming about by chance and it's evidence of the impossibility of having no creator.
@Glaucus We have no evidence to show that the early earth was chemically anything like the chemicals needed to create amino acids. Also, only a small percentage of the end result is aminos and only a small amount of those aminos are actually used in life forms. These aminos would need to be separated quickly from the other end products or they would be destroyed before forming the bonds needed. Also, the chemicals used originally more readily bond with other things, so none of those other things could be present during the reaction. The list of problems goes on and on and it's not just with the aminos. In this argument I'm talking about a generic creator, but I believe in the specific Creator of the God of the Bible.
(21-04-2011 12:19 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  It seems to me that you are implying that it can't happen by chance because we are unable to replicate it (yet). Am I reading you right?

Obviously not the cause/effect relationship, but I'm saying that since we can't replicate it there's strong evidence that it didn't happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2011, 08:00 PM
RE: An Argument
(24-04-2011 05:55 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Obviously not the cause/effect relationship, but I'm saying that since we can't replicate it there's strong evidence that it didn't happen.

False. All that says is that we haven't been able to replicate it, yet. In the tenth century they couldn't build a supersonic jet aircraft. Did that prove that no material object could travel faster than the speed of sound?

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
24-04-2011, 08:14 PM
RE: An Argument
(24-04-2011 05:55 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  @Stark Raving What evidence are you referring to? Also, do you know how the human body works? The human brain is more powerful than the world's best supercomputers and you say we're badly designed? Also, just because we exist a certain way now doesn't mean that's exactly what we were like at the time of Creation.

(21-04-2011 12:19 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  It seems to me that you are implying that it can't happen by chance because we are unable to replicate it (yet). Am I reading you right?

Obviously not the cause/effect relationship, but I'm saying that since we can't replicate it there's strong evidence that it didn't happen.

Let me explain it this way. There is a lack of evidence that carbon monoxide is present in my home. Evidence of it's presence would be me lying on the floor dead. So, the lack of evidence IS evidence that it is not present.
As for the human body; yes, I am quite familiar with it and it's workings. The brain is a wonderfully evolved this, this is true. But there are countless "design flaws" as well. Follow BnWs link at the top of the page for some examples of this. And the idea that we were created by an intelligent designer, and are no longer like we were at the time of creation is a pretty weak argument. If we were created by an all knowing creator, would he not design us perfectly, and incorporate into that design a fail safe to maintain that perfection? I mean seriously, if he's perfect, and we are created in his image....c'mon man.

Us not being able to replicate something is pretty piss poor evidence that it didn't happen if you ask me. Why is it that humans need to be able to do something for it to be possible?? Besides, we come closer to replicating life all the time. When we do, will you become an atheist because that's evidence that there is no intelligent designer?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2011, 11:15 PM
RE: An Argument
(21-04-2011 02:53 PM)BnW Wrote:  For example, 10 signs of evolution in modern man

I find it interesting that those show signs of devolution more than just evolution. Also, I find it interesting that they attribute the tail-bone to evolution from having a tail while also stating the many functions it has currently.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: