Proof God Exists ››
Tim E. Husk @ May 12, 2012 4:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jdubit
here lets try a couple different analogies:
would you say that given an infinite amount of time, a scrap yard could produce a F16 jet, all on it's own?
would you say that given an infinite # of attempts, blowing up a print shop would eventually produce shakespeare?
the reason you guys don't like these analogies, is not because they're flawed in any way, it's because they easily shows how ridiculous your beliefs are.
The reason people don't like these analogies is because they aren't relevant. Biological systems as a whole and smaller parts of them, down the microscopic level, are not F16 jets or the works of Shakespeare. If you can't figure out why, you really should read the works of scientists and philosophers who don't support creationism. This shit has been explained literally thousands of times for all types of audiences.
Next you'll pull out the classic 'what good is half an eye?' line or something equally fatuous.
jdubit @ May 12, 2012 5:18 PM
Originally posted by: barbarossaOriginally posted by: jdubit
here lets try a couple different analogies:
would you say that given an infinite amount of time, a scrap yard could produce a F16 jet, all on it's own?
would you say that given an infinite # of attempts, blowing up a print shop would eventually produce shakespeare?
the reason you guys don't like these analogies, is not because they're flawed in any way, it's because they easily shows how ridiculous your beliefs are.
The reason people don't like these analogies is because they aren't relevant. Biological systems as a whole and smaller parts of them, down the microscopic level, are not F16 jets or the works of Shakespeare. If you can't figure out why, you really should read the works of scientists and philosophers who don't support creationism. This shit has been explained literally thousands of times for all types of audiences.
Next you'll pull out the classic 'what good is half an eye?' line or something equally fatuous.
They're completely relevant. Also, of course an F16 is not a biological machine. My comparison is not implying that. I'm comparing the complexities of an F16 to that of a living organism. Also, I'm comparing it to a living organism as a whole, not the individual parts.
yantastic @ May 12, 2012 5:33 PM
Originally posted by: jdubit
here lets try a couple different analogies:
would you say that given an infinite amount of time, a scrap yard could produce a F16 jet, all on it's own?
would you say that given an infinite # of attempts, blowing up a print shop would eventually produce shakespeare?
the reason you guys don't like these analogies, is not because they're flawed in any way, it's because they easily shows how ridiculous your beliefs are.
like DNA is able to provide the structure to create mitochondria, cell walls, etc into cells into multicellular organisms and so forth, these same organisms can therefore create an F16.
so given the intermediary steps, yes, a scrap yard could produce an F16 jet.
i am skimble @ May 12, 2012 11:57 PM
Originally posted by: jdubitOriginally posted by: i am skimble
So what you're saying is you cannot really answer my question except by dodging the point. Awesome, fun talk.
When you refine your argument I'd be happy to continue this with you.
What question? Also, the fact that you said you don't want to get "tripped" up in my analogy tells me that you're afraid to realize just how ridiculous it is to believe we weren't created by an Intelligent Being. My analogy helps put your beliefs in perspective, and you're scared of that.
Again, the fact that you're comparing the complexity of a snow flake to that of a living organism, even a single celled living organism, tells me that you truly do not understand the complexity of life.
The question, which I know you are clearly avoiding, is: at what point does spontaneous natural order become design?
Yes, a snowflake is a less ordered system than a living organism, but it is ordered none the less. You posit that life is so ordered that it must arise from intelligent design, but this is an arbitrary point of measurement if you cannot establish a threshold--so: on a spectrum at which one end is a snowflake and the other end is a living thing where does intelligent design fall?
I anticipate your argument will be, "the physical principles through which the universe operates were cherry picked by an intelligent designer such that the simplest order (such as a snowflake) is design as well as the most complex (such as DNA).
If this is true then the chemical and physical principles that allow a snowflake to arise from random water droplets are the EXACT SAME principle which allow a molecule such as RNA to come together from random atoms and molecules. If this is true than it actually doesn't matter whether those principles where chosen by an intelligence or came about randomly, because the outcome is the same.
tonyconner @ May 13, 2012 10:27 AM
jdubstep is a retard... god isn't real, science isn't 100% accurate, stop arguing about it, we'll all find out when we're dead. end thread
crunkmoose @ May 13, 2012 12:38 PM
Originally posted by: jdubitOriginally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubit
you calling my argument flawed and saying it's not direct evidence, does not make my argument any less valid. sorry crunk, you have to be more specific as to why my argument is unacceptable.
Its not direct evidence.. its indirect... not direct.
The creation is the DIRECT evidence. How many times do i have to say this?
You don't have to say it again. You just have to understand that it is not direct evidence. It is indirect evidence. at best. Go look up what actual proof is.. and go look up the numerous refutations of your watchmaker argument.
jdubit @ May 13, 2012 3:26 PM
Originally posted by: yantasticOriginally posted by: jdubit
here lets try a couple different analogies:
would you say that given an infinite amount of time, a scrap yard could produce a F16 jet, all on it's own?
would you say that given an infinite # of attempts, blowing up a print shop would eventually produce shakespeare?
the reason you guys don't like these analogies, is not because they're flawed in any way, it's because they easily shows how ridiculous your beliefs are.
like DNA is able to provide the structure to create mitochondria, cell walls, etc into cells into multicellular organisms and so forth, these same organisms can therefore create an F16.
so given the intermediary steps, yes, a scrap yard could produce an F16 jet.
of course an F16 is not a biological machine. My comparison is not implying that. I'm comparing the complexities of an F16 to that of a living organism. Also, I'm comparing it to a living organism as a whole, not the individual parts.
jdubit @ May 13, 2012 3:30 PM
Originally posted by: i am skimbleOriginally posted by: jdubitOriginally posted by: i am skimble
So what you're saying is you cannot really answer my question except by dodging the point. Awesome, fun talk.
When you refine your argument I'd be happy to continue this with you.
What question? Also, the fact that you said you don't want to get "tripped" up in my analogy tells me that you're afraid to realize just how ridiculous it is to believe we weren't created by an Intelligent Being. My analogy helps put your beliefs in perspective, and you're scared of that.
Again, the fact that you're comparing the complexity of a snow flake to that of a living organism, even a single celled living organism, tells me that you truly do not understand the complexity of life.
The question, which I know you are clearly avoiding, is: at what point does spontaneous natural order become design?
Yes, a snowflake is a less ordered system than a living organism, but it is ordered none the less. You posit that life is so ordered that it must arise from intelligent design, but this is an arbitrary point of measurement if you cannot establish a threshold--so: on a spectrum at which one end is a snowflake and the other end is a living thing where does intelligent design fall?
I anticipate your argument will be, "the physical principles through which the universe operates were cherry picked by an intelligent designer such that the simplest order (such as a snowflake) is design as well as the most complex (such as DNA).
If this is true then the chemical and physical principles that allow a snowflake to arise from random water droplets are the EXACT SAME principle which allow a molecule such as RNA to come together from random atoms and molecules. If this is true than it actually doesn't matter whether those principles where chosen by an intelligence or came about randomly, because the outcome is the same.
i believe everything about the natural order to be all intelligently designed. even the snowflake.
jdubit @ May 13, 2012 3:32 PM
Originally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubitOriginally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubit
you calling my argument flawed and saying it's not direct evidence, does not make my argument any less valid. sorry crunk, you have to be more specific as to why my argument is unacceptable.
Its not direct evidence.. its indirect... not direct.
The creation is the DIRECT evidence. How many times do i have to say this?
You don't have to say it again. You just have to understand that it is not direct evidence. It is indirect evidence. at best. Go look up what actual proof is.. and go look up the numerous refutations of your watchmaker argument.
we'll have to agree to disagree.
jdubit @ May 13, 2012 7:19 PM
to crunk: also, when an archaeologist discovers an artifact from the ground, is it not direct evidence that the civilization existed? their creations are direct evidence that these intelligent people existed. intelligent enough to create the artifact in question at least.
