Proof God Exists ››
jdubit @ May 10, 2012 5:13 AM
Quote
This documentary is about synthetic biology. As you can see, DNA is liken to sophisticated software, a program. The last time I checked, intelligent programmers are the ones that program software.The likeliness of DNA coming about on it's own, void of intelligence, could be likened to the field of synthetic biology coming about on it's own, void of intelligent scientists.
click here for link
c-wizard @ May 10, 2012 9:54 AM
Flawless logic.Originally posted by: TheOtherGodhead
LOL
Originally posted by: deadlift
FUCKING L O L
Ron Shark @ May 10, 2012 10:29 AM
Originally posted by: c-wizard
Flawless logic.Originally posted by: TheOtherGodhead
LOLOriginally posted by: deadlift
FUCKING L O L
LastOnePicked @ May 10, 2012 10:48 AM
This documentary is about my balls. As you can see, my balls are liken to fruit. The last time I checked, fruit grows on trees.The likeliness of my balls coming about on their own, void of a tree, could be liken to the field of synthetic biology coming about on it's own, void of intelligent scientists.
By the way, master biologist, the word is fucking likened.
crunkmoose @ May 10, 2012 1:06 PM
Comparing one thing in nature to another that we know to be man-made does not logically allow one to then assume the two must be the same in their origins, etc...You can change this argument from the originally pocket watch version in as many ways as you want.. its still just as completely invalid.... and the idea that if one accepted this argument then one could just stop right there rather than have to logically continue on to explain the origins of the far more advanced and complex creator that is necessary for this argument in the first place.
(brian) @ May 10, 2012 1:12 PM
Originally posted by: *MissMayI*
This is why I am Athiest.
I AM ATHEIST. Indefinite articles are for God-believers.
jdubit @ May 10, 2012 1:35 PM
Originally posted by: crunkmoose
Comparing one thing in nature to another that we know to be man-made does not logically allow one to then assume the two must be the same in their origins, etc...
Of course I'm going to compare it to something we all know is made from intelligence, that is the point of the analogy. It wouldn't make any sense if I compared it to something we know not to be made by intelligence.
The fact one comes from nature is completely irrelevant.
“We infer design when we see that parts appear to be arranged for a purpose. … The more parts that are arranged, and the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design.” {Testimony in the trial Kitzmiller vs. DASB}
I still stand by my statement: The likeliness of DNA coming about on it's own, void of intelligence, could be liken to the field of synthetic biology coming about on it's own, void of intelligent scientists.
You can change this argument from the originally pocket watch version in as many ways as you want.. its still just as completely invalid.... and the idea that if one accepted this argument then one could just stop right there rather than have to logically continue on to explain the origins of the far more advanced and complex creator that is necessary for this argument in the first place.
Not this tired argument again. This paragraph can explain it better than I can:
"We infer design regularly and reliably without knowing characteristics of the designer or being able to assess what the designer is likely to do. In his 1999 presidential address for the American Philosophical Association Sober himself admits as much in a footnote that deserves to be part of his main text ('Testability,' Proceedings and Addresses of the APA 1999, p. 73, n. 20): 'To infer watchmaker from watch, you needn't know exactly what the watchmaker had in mind; indeed, you don't even have to know that the watch is a device for measuring time. Archaeologists sometimes unearth tools of unknown function, but still reasonably draw the inference that these things are, in fact, tools ;"
I would like to go even further, and say that you needn't know the exact origins of the watchmaker either.
Also, using your logic, since we don't know even how our life began on this earth (just like we don't know how God's life came into existence), I guess nothing is intelligently designed. not even sophisticated technology made by man.
jdubit @ May 10, 2012 1:42 PM
Also this... “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}"Dawkins added that if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.} I must add, there are many molecular machines in living things. Their moving parts work together to do the work of every cell. Most of us would interpret all this as telling us that living things really were designed. Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. He goes on to use imagination, speculation, philosophy, and his wonderful story telling ability to undercut the evidence."
lol dawkins
