Evolutionists, where, geographically, did man evolve?

[dust1n]

Where is the magic ? the ability to do anything doesn't mean doing it by magic

I can do all things.

Magic is a thing.

Therefore I can do magic.

Apparently, you doubt the ability of your God to do all things, because you claim he cannot do magic. This is despite the fact the Qur'an says God rolled seed into a ball of clay and turned it into bones, and then after put, coated the bones in flesh, which is far more magical than making something materialize out of thin air.

That isn't the designed glass that we make, it's kind of stupid glasses that nature can produce but yes humans are much simpler than making a cup of glass.

It's the kind of stupid glass that God designs, apparently.

 

[dust1n]

Did this software magically write itself or was it written on purpose? which is more plausible?

It's hilarious to me that if software writes itself it's magic. If God writers the software, it's not magic, despite the fact there is no way to observe in any scientific way, how actually make living things. God puts dust in his hand, moves it around, and BAM! Human. No magic here. Totally scientific.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's hilarious to me that if software writes itself it's magic. If God writers the software, it's not magic, despite the fact there is no way to observe in any scientific way, how actually make living things. God puts dust in his hand, moves it around, and BAM! Human. No magic here. Totally scientific.

right, so an author writing code for a specific functional purpose, is less magic than it spontaneously self creating for no particular reason.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

right, so an author writing code for a specific functional purpose, is less magic than it spontaneously self creating for no particular reason.

Of course not. However there are particular reasons. So that doesn't' really cover the claim of science here.

 

[FearGod]

I can do all things.

Magic is a thing.

Therefore I can do magic.

Apparently, you doubt the ability of your God to do all things, because you claim he cannot do magic. This is despite the fact the Qur'an says God rolled seed into a ball of clay and turned it into bones, and then after put, coated the bones in flesh, which is far more magical than making something materialize out of thin air.

If the sperm and the ovum that united and developed to a baby in the womb looks to you as a work of magic that doesn't mean that God is a magician.

It's the kind of stupid glass that God designs, apparently.

The stupid glass wasn't a work of design as human is, nature can produce stupid things once not guided.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

point being; between chance and design, which one is extraordinary magic and which is the norm depends entirely on the frame of reference right?- which we just don't have for how universes and life 'usually' appear-
there's no default answer to this, have to look at the individual merits of each.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

point being; between chance and design, which one is extraordinary magic and which is the norm depends entirely on the frame of reference right?- which we just don't have for how universes and life 'usually' appear-
there's no default answer to this, have to look at the individual merits of each.

Design by someone is actually the 'magical". It implies things we have no evidence for. Its pure conjecture based upon a misconception based upon a psychological need we have developed as a species. But there is nothing "magical" about the universe acting like the universe and expressing itself through the laws of physics and those actions. Nothing about our natural laws had to be suspended in the case of evolution. Laws had to be not only suspended but re-written to match a claim without evidence in the first place.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Design by someone is actually the 'magical". It implies things we have no evidence for. Its pure conjecture based upon a misconception based upon a psychological need we have developed as a species. But there is nothing "magical" about the universe acting like the universe and expressing itself through the laws of physics and those actions. Nothing about our natural laws had to be suspended in the case of evolution. Laws had to be not only suspended but re-written to match a claim without evidence in the first place.

Or.. design by something is actually the 'magical". It implies things we have no evidence for. Its pure conjecture based upon a paradoxical misconception that automated function somehow implies automated design..

To say the laws of nature can be accounted for by those very same laws is suspending logic itself, to say that simple laws created a man from a molecule by accidental improvements suspends the law of entropy.

But laws have had to be re-written to match reality many times, falsifiable claims that theism predicted and atheism didn't- a beginning of time and space itself, and the failure of classical physics

 

[metis]

Why is it that we get some who parade through here who obviously do not understand that much about science, including what "entropy" actually entails? Maybe they should actually do some research first, such as maybe even starting here: Entropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Or.. design by something is actually the 'magical". It implies things we have no evidence for. Its pure conjecture based upon a paradoxical misconception that automated function somehow implies automated design..

To say the laws of nature can be accounted for by those very same laws is suspending logic itself, to say that simple laws created a man from a molecule by accidental improvements suspends the law of entropy.

But laws have had to be re-written to match reality many times, falsifiable claims that theism predicted and atheism didn't- a beginning of time and space itself, and the failure of classical physics

It actually doesn't suspend any laws. Multiple laws work together. It is like saying that gravity suspends the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It doesn't.

 

[Valjean]

right, so an author writing code for a specific functional purpose, is less magic than it spontaneously self creating for no particular reason.

It did not spontaneously create itself for no particular reason. No-one is saying that. It was selected -- by natural means.
Your case is based on a completely erroneous understanding of what you're arguing against.

point being; between chance and design, which one is extraordinary magic and which is the norm depends entirely on the frame of reference right?- which we just don't have for how universes and life 'usually' appear-
there's no default answer to this, have to look at the individual merits of each.

Again. Natural selection and the other mechanisms of evolution are not chance. Did you sleep through 8th grade biology?
The ToE describes the mechanisms involved in change over time. Why do you persist in falsely representing these as a die roll?

 

[dust1n]

right, so an author writing code for a specific functional purpose, is less magic than it spontaneously self creating for no particular reason.

Strange, I feel the same way about god. It seems more likely that something designed and created God into existence, and is less magic than God spontaneously self creating or have always been existing for no particular reason.

Unless God's intention was to purposelessly give fetuses genetic diseases as well as all the good things human like, than the code we are discussing serves no particular functional purpose other than reproduction.

How did write the code of DNA? Did he physically come down to existence and rearrange the atoms by hand into the a configuration of DNA? The magic is is that you that theists will say something like "God made the universe" as if that was an actual explanation of anything. How did God code the DNA? Magic. Otherwise, tell me how one codes without a keyboard or a pencil.

 

[dust1n]

If the sperm and the ovum that united and developed to a baby in the womb looks to you as a work of magic that doesn't mean that God is a magician.

I know what it looks like, it looks like taking a seed and rolling it up in a ball of clay until that becomes a bone, than you add those bones together, and drape flesh across it.

The stupid glass wasn't a work of design as human is, nature can produce stupid things once not guided.

Interesting. So God designed everything, unless it was stupid. He can do anything, unless it's magic. Interestingly enough humans can produce stupid things, but God can't. The work of design that's formed in glass when hit by lighting is infinitely more complex than the design humans implore. Humans make a clear square. That lighting glass would require fractal computing to reproduce something like that. So strange that the "designed thing" is relatively easy to understand, while the "stupid thing" is far more complicated then the designed thing. Weird.

 

[FearGod]

Without using logic you may think of God as being magic, not seeing or tracing God doesn't mean he isn't existing.

 

[FearGod]

I know what it looks like, it looks like taking a seed and rolling it up in a ball of clay until that becomes a bone, than you add those bones together, and drape flesh across it.

Who is much clever, you or the inanimate nature ?

Interesting. So God designed everything, unless it was stupid. He can do anything, unless it's magic. Interestingly enough humans can produce stupid things, but God can't. The work of design that's formed in glass when hit by lighting is infinitely more complex than the design humans implore. Humans make a clear square. That lighting glass would require fractal computing to reproduce something like that. So strange that the "designed thing" is relatively easy to understand, while the "stupid thing" is far more complicated then the designed thing. Weird.

Can nature make a cup of glass accidentally ?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Who is much clever, you or the inanimate nature ?

has nothing to do with being clever.

 

[FearGod]

has nothing to do with being clever.

Has to do with randomness and chances.

 

[Valjean]

Without using logic you may think of God as being magic, not seeing or tracing God doesn't mean he isn't existing.

Please explain this logic. An argument from incredulity is not logic.

If God doesn't use magic, what mechanism does He use? If he leaves thing to happen through the ordinary laws of chemistry and physics already in place, then He is superfluous and useless. If He actively intervenes in the happenings on Earth, then he does so by magic.

Can nature make a cup of glass accidentally ?

Sure, why not?

Lava launched into the air can assume all kinds of shapes as it cools into glass.

 

[dust1n]

Who is much clever, you or the inanimate nature?

Well, if God existed, I don't see how there would be inanimate nature, unless God accidentally makes things that he isn't aware of happening before hand. Nature would be infused with God's intention. It may be inanimate but it is of and acts because of the direction of an animate being.

But, I don't get existed. And I also don't think nature has any ability of thinking, nor the intentions to be anything in particular, so I don't cleverness is an attribute one could apply to nature.

Can nature make a cup of glass accidentally ?

I'd assume the chances of that happening to be slim. There's very few instances where geometric shapes are that simple in nature.

 

[dust1n]

Without using logic you may think of God as being magic, not seeing or tracing God doesn't mean he isn't existing.

No matter what sort of seed I could think of, rolling it up in clay, and over and over until it hardens into bone would never work, if I, or you, or any other being on Earth did it. But if God does it, it works. Why is it that when God does it, it makes bone, but when you or I do it, it doesn't make bone?