Arkansas inflicts child abuse on its school children

[tas8831]

Life would have no capability to reproduce life unless someone designed it to do so.

Assertions devoid of evidence are just so precious!

 

[tas8831]

The fact that animals design things proves that they were designed.

No it doesn't.

You have circular reasoning. A complex brain that designed itself. Really?

Strawman much?

If you see any other machine, you aren't going to imagine that it happened by random causation.

Because people know that humans make machines, maybe?

But your own body and brain did?

Strawman much?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Because people know that humans make machines, maybe?

Because logic says design demands a designer.
We follow that logic in every other area.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It means random causation, no engineering, no intelligence behind anything, just life springing from nothing. That's all you have.

"Evolutionists" do not think that life sprang from "nothing". You attack something you do not understand so therefore you are jousting at windmills.

Um if that were so, we would not be here. For the first billion years what happened before we adapted? " We all died of course." That's how dumb that theory is.

What I find silly is this assertion. We hadn't evolved into our current form during the first 4 billion years.

Whow! You think we think human beings "evolved" and THEN "adapted"!? Oh for Crying Out Loud!

Dude, stop attacking things you don't understand! It's pointless!

Understand it; then you will be equipped with a modicum of knowledge to attack it with.

Because logic says design demands a designer.

Logic also dictates that if something was not designed, then it would not demand a designer. You see the biological form and assume it is "designed". If it were designed, your logic would be correct. But we fail to see something as "designed" simply because it is "complex".

 

[McBell]

It means random causation, no engineering, no intelligence behind anything, just life springing from nothing. That's all you have.

Why add a completely unsupported out side the imagination layer that does nothing to answer the question?

That is all the "GodDidIt" does.

 

[McBell]

Because logic says design demands a designer.
We follow that logic in every other area.

You keep skipping the step where you show it is designed.

 

[McBell]

Um if that were so, we would not be here.

Prove it.

 

[Bear Wild]

Life would have no capability to reproduce life unless someone designed it to do so. I have plenty of experience with the miracle of life, and with childbirth and animals being born, and with living in the natural world. Much more than 90 percent of the population.
Life isn't an entity. It can't create on its own. The fact that you speak of life this way shows your circular reasoning. Life produces life, but only if there's a first cause and only if it's a guided system. To propose that life came from non-life is just gooblygook.

Well you may have experience with birthing animals and people but you clearly have no understanding of the biology behind life. Your experience helping people and animals in the world may more than 90 percent (although I do not know how you came up with that number) but your understanding of evolution genetics and biology as represented by your posts is less than 5%. Life creates its own- basic biology, life is guided by genetics interacting with the environment - basic evolution, Life has the ability to reproduce without any designer and change the physical and physiological presentation with time - basic genetics. So far you are not doing well on these subjects. You did say that life produces life and that is a positive step thus the 5%.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh my! Duane Gish would be proud of this one.

Not when it comes to the past or the future.

Sure it does. That's how science works and why it's so effective. You should pick up a scientific journal sometime, that's where they publish their findings.

You are the one who cannot seem to demonstrate the veracity of your bold assertions.

Now as far as God:

The Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."

Why should anyone care what the Bible says?


Especially when it’s wrong, as in what you’ve said here. I’m an evidence person. Show me evidence and I’ll have to accept it, because I care about believing in true things and not believing in false things. So your Bible is wrong about me. Now what?

The earth is perfect in every way for human habitation. Course if you want to believe that's a coincidence, you can suppress the evidence and believe that.

It really isn’t. The vast majority of the earth is covered in water and is uninhabitable for human beings. Then there’s the North and South Poles which aren’t so great for human habitation either.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

If you want to believe it developed by random processes, you certainly can do that, but it takes a lot of faith in... something that is highly improbable.

It’s already been pointed out to you that natural selection isn’t random in the sense you’re talking about so I’m wondering why you’re still repeating this.

Please don’t bother trying to drag science down to the level of faith that your religion requires in some bizarre attempt to demean it (ironically so, of course).

Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."

Not sure why you’ve provided this “quote” or why anyone should care what this one guy has to say (especially one who isn’t here to converse with), but this is called “quote mining” and it’s an entirely dishonest method of argumentation.

Google “The Quote Mine Project” and I’m sure this quote you’ve shared will be there, along with an explanation as to how it’s been dishonestly taken out of context by creationists who can’t be bothered to back up their own claims.

Scientists have no explanation for the sudden expansion of light and matter, and where the energy came from.

Then the answer to the question of “where did light and matter come from” is “I don’t know,” not “Goddidit.” You don’t get to cram your God into the equation because we don’t know the answer to something.

That is the very definition of the God of the Gaps argument you keep insisting you are not using.

Keep in mind that before we knew where lightning came from, human beings once posited that it came from the Gods. Now that we know where it comes from, you don’t see people claiming the Gods are responsible for it anymore. Think about that.

All of the sciences--molecular biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc.--hinge on the consistent laws of nature.

How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change?

Because we’re able to observe and measure the environment around us.

Did these laws just come into existence by themselves?

We don’t know.

But let’s not pretend you’re not in the same boat as everyone else here. Ever asked yourself where God came from? Did this God just create himself? Did this God just come into existence by himself? See? Same problem.

"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."

(Dr. Emily Baldwin)

And? We find ourselves in the universe we’re in. So it doesn’t have to be this way. So what? It is. If it was another way, maybe we wouldn’t be here to talk about it, or we’d be talking about something else. So what? What’s your point? That we should make up some God and inject it into the equation without any evidence? Why?

Physicist Paul C. Davies: "…to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws…”

Richard Feynman, a (Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics,): "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."

Please, I can’t take anymore quote mining that I’ve already seen dozens of times before. When someone has to resort to quote mining, in my opinion, they’ve already forfeited the discussion.

In every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program.

DNA is a complex, arranged program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.

If you want to believe that just happened, you can, but I think you're stretching the limits of the possible.

I could go on and on, but the question isn't so much about the evidence, it's whether you want to accept the evidence.

DNA is not a program and it’s not a code. It’s a string of molecules. You’re getting lost in an analogy again, like when you compared biological organisms to computers.

And if you want to go down this complexity road, I have to ask, how complex would you say the God you worship is? If complexity is the hallmark of design, as you seem to think (and despite the fact that it isn't), then you'd better explain who designed the God you worship.


The only “evidence” you’ve provided here is a logical fallacy. You can’t imagine how the universe could exist, so you inject some God into the equation without bothering to demonstrate the existence of any God(s) in the first place. In other words, you’ve just smuggled in a God without doing any of the actual work.[/QUOTE]

 

[SkepticThinker]

It means random causation, no engineering, no intelligence behind anything, just life springing from nothing. That's all you have.

Whoa, now you've snuck in another element here: "Life springing from nothing."
I've never claimed I believe that. In fact, that seems to be what Christians and some other religious-types believe. You wouldn't be projecting, would you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Um if that were so, we would not be here. For the first billion years what happened before we adapted? " We all died of course." That's how dumb that theory is.

Umm, human beings weren't on planet earth "for the first billion years before we adapted." It's not the theory that's dumb, it's your understanding (or lack thereof) of it.

The fact of the matter is, that we are here on this planet that is definitely and demonstrably NOT, "perfect in every way for human habitation." Go live in the middle of one of our oceans and let me know how that goes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because logic says design demands a designer.
We follow that logic in every other area.

When did you demonstrate that anything is/was designed?

You really need to brush up on some of this logic stuff.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It’s already been pointed out to you that natural selection isn’t random in the sense you’re talking about so I’m wondering why you’re still repeating this.

Of course it's random. According to you, doe someone pick what mutation happens? You can say that the best mutation survives, but it still happened by total chance and even a beneficial mutation is often a loss of information, not a gain. So, even calling it beneficial isn't really correct.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Umm, human beings weren't on planet earth "for the first billion years before we adapted." It's not the theory that's dumb, it's your understanding (or lack thereof) of it.

The fact of the matter is, that we are here on this planet that is definitely and demonstrably NOT, "perfect in every way for human habitation." Go live in the middle of one of our oceans and let me know how that goes.

We could not survive here if it were not suited to habitation. You are nit-picking. Even having oceans is necessary for life on this planet.
The ocean produces over half of the world's oxygen and absorbs 50 times more carbon dioxide than our atmosphere.
The ocean provides us with food for billions of people. We could not even breathe if we didn't have oceans. So, yeah, it's kind of important for human habitation.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And? We find ourselves in the universe we’re in. So it doesn’t have to be this way. So what? It is. If it was another way, maybe we wouldn’t be here to talk about it, or we’d be talking about something else. So what? What’s your point? That we should make up some God and inject it into the equation without any evidence? Why?

Because the most logical explanation for design is an intelligent designer.

Planet Earth possesses all the key elements which make it possible for life to survive on the planet:

• 
  Fred Hoyle (a well-respected English astronomer
  a who was primarily known for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis:
  
  
  “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics
  and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

 

[Wildswanderer]

"Evolutionists" do not think that life sprang from "nothing"

Oh, it sprang from energy which sprang from nothing!

 

[metis]

There is a mathematical and cosmological concept called "infinity".

So, for us theistically inclined, a legitimate question could be "What caused God?". Now if one responds "God always existed", then that dove-tails with the concept of "infinity" used within science and math.

But then there's the issue of "time" itself, but I'm not going into that.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Oh, it sprang from energy which sprang from nothing!

You have shifted the goalpost; a common tactic among Creationists. The original objection you postulated was "life from nonlife". Then it became "life from nothing". Now it became "something (anything) from nothing".

You are wrong on all counts.

Physicists don't claim "nothing"; they claim "nothing ... as we understand nothing". Even then, if you take a bubble and you remove all matter and energy from that bubble, what remains is a vacuum; and that vacuum is rampant with "vacuum energy" which is "something".

So a more precise definition of what we know or believe to be true prior to the big bang is "Lack of anything, as we understand anything to be".

It remains accepted that:

- Evolution happened, as can be mapped through various processes
- Abiogenesis happened, as life is natural chemical processes
- There was something before the Big Bang; we just don't understand what that "something" was and that "something" is so foreign to us that it can best be described as "nothing".

I don't think you can argue any further backwards than that, but it will be interesting to see you try.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

This is how "new information" is added to a genome:

Frameshift Mutation

 

[Wildswanderer]

Abiogenesis happened, as life is natural chemical processes

Then you should be able to replicate it easily.