How do you detect "design"?

[We Never Know]

It merely reveals a desperation to throw out a 'gotcha'.
In this case it backfired.

Facts aren't gotcha's.

Lets get off a designer and see if its clearer for you

"we don't believe there is no water".

IOW.. You are saying you believe there is water.

It can't get any clearer.

Sorry its above you pay grade.

 

[F1fan]

Since science does not say that a living spirit God does not exist, that means that science does not say that chemicals are the basis of life.

Do you get a dollar for every time you use the word "no" or "not"? Your language is convoluted.

Remember science HAS to follow facts and data. It CAN'T make assumptions that aren't axiomatic. Science has no more grudge against religious ideas than it does against Hobbits or Wookies. Fictional characters are irrelevant.

If however you are talking about biological life, the word "biological" does tells us that chemicals are involved.

I'm not sure why you work so hard to get science wrong. Life is chemical based 100%. DNA is chemical chains.

We are talking about different things, as I said. Biological life has chemicals and for abiogenesis, these chemicals need to be able to form bodies fairly easily. This does not mean that chemicals are the basis of what life it. Scientists disagree on how to define "life" but I bet they are talking about "biological organisms" and not about what "life" actually is. IOW can chemicals only become a living organism or is there something else also which is needed.

You are holding onto to your assumption that magic is what makes up life. Yet we have asked you for evidence orver and over again. You have none. So all that's left is chemicals.

The irony of all creationists who read Bibles is that the trees that the paper is made from all evolved from chemicals, and here you are denying it.

Look at what I am replying to in post 1213

• #1,213

and you might notice that I am replying to your insult to theists/creationists and that I am not insulting scientists, but am tongue in cheek insulting atheists.

Me pointing out how creationists get science wrong is not an insult. You don;t get science right, fact. You don't use reasoning, fact. You have unwarranted religious assumptions that are not realitic, fact. Your beliefs are incorrect to what science reports, fact.

And you do insult scientists be assuming your flawed beliefs are more accurate than what experts report. You even misrepresent what science reports, implying they reject God, etc. Insulting and disrespectful, that's creationists.

And also remember that when I say "life" I am meaning the thing that animates chemicals and makes them alive. When you say "life" you seem to mean "biological organisms".

Yeah, no evidence of what "animates" living tissue. You are falling back on old, obsolete ideas that came well before science. What this is evidence for in the 21st century is inseculre and desperate believers. You're better off trying to find some peace of mind instead of manipulating thoughts in unrealitic ways.

You have no interest in the evidence I have to offer.

Look at you bluffing once again. You've already decided that it's insufficient, yet you believe. This is why creationists have so much inner turmoil and are confused.

 

[McBell]

Facts aren't gotcha's.

Lets get off a designer and see if its clearer for you

"we don't believe there is no water".

IOW.. You are saying you believe there is water.

It can't get any clearer.

Sorry its above you pay grade.

Doubling and tripling down on it only makes you look foolish.

but you do you.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

No doubt your belief in the existence of unicorns is zero.

Until then those old school buses wll have to do. At least we could paint them pink and put glitter on them.

How did my beliefs become zero?

 

[F1fan]

How did my beliefs become zero?

Unless you are a seven year old girl any rational mind won't believe in unicorns at any level above zero.

I can write this sentence:

I believe in the healing power of Jesus due to his scrifice for the sake of humanity, at 0%.

 

[We Never Know]

Doubling and tripling down on it only makes you look foolish.

but you do you.

The only cure for ignorance is learning.

But like you can't make a horse drink, you can't make anyone learn.

 

[We Never Know]

Doubling and tripling down on it only makes you look foolish.

but you do you.

Riddle me this...

If I say "we don't believe there is no water"

What am I saying about water?

Surely you can answer that.(doubt you will though)

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm just pointing out that for those who say it is designed and for those who say it is not designed, we are in the same boat. You cannot demonstrate your position and I cannot demonstrate mine.

We are not in the same boat. You are claiming design. And not only that, you take it another step further and claim the design was done by the specific god you believe exists.
My response is, cool claim, what's the evidence for design, and then what's the evidence for the god you believe in?

Maybe. Science does not work in the simplistic way that I stated but skeptics work in that way when they say that they propose (without proof) that there is no designer, and if those who say there is a designer cannot prove it then there is no designer.

The skeptic doesn't say "there is no designer." The skeptic says what I just said above.

You say there is a designer. Your claim. Your burden of proof. It's quite simple. I do not know what it is about this concept that you cannot seem to grasp. Help me out here.

 

[firedragon]

what's the evidence for design

Interesting.

Can you give me empirical evidence that abiogenesis took place? Let's say along with statistical probabilities as well?

Thanks.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I have said, why should anyone consider the idea that there is no design and no designer when nobody has shown these thing. This is just stepping past what science can tell us and into the realm of that dirty word, belief.

This was in response to, "You're the one making the assumption here. The assumption that it was designed. And you have no evidence to offer.
So why should anyone consider it?"

Once again you've misunderstood the burden of proof and flipped it the wrong way.

You claim there is a designer. You need to demonstrate that there is design and that it's the specific designer you're claiming.

In order for anyone to consider the idea of design, you'd need to show there is a reason to think so in the first place. In other words, you'd need to present some kind of evidence indicating that it's designed. Rather than just claiming it.

If you don't like any evidence I might offer then that is a problem you have imo. I'm not here to keep offering evidence to convince you that a god exists.

This was in response to, "Correction: People claim to have interacted with GodS for thousands of years. Do you think people have interacted with Thor? Allah? Apollo?"

Notice that you've neither responded to my question (again) nor addressed my point.

People claim to have interacted with God for thousands of years. There is only one true God.

These are two claims that require evidence.

Believing that spiritual things are not true is not what science teaches. That is a belief of skeptics.

No, it isn't. *sigh*

Neither skeptics nor "science" make the claim that "spiritual things are not true."

YOU make the claim that "spiritual things are true." So, you need to first define what "spiritual things" are, and then demonstrate that they are true.

Until then, skeptics and "science" have no reason to consider them true.

Your not being able to see good evidence for God is not a reason to say that God does not exist or that faith cannot lead to the truth.

The "evidence" you've just presented to me is that "people have interacted with God for thousands of years."

1. Those are claims, not evidence.
2. You've not shown that anyone has actually interacted with Gods for thousands of years.
3. You've not shown that anyone has interacted with the specific god you believe in for "thousands of years."

And AGAIN, I don't claim "God doesn't exist." Skeptics don't claim that. "Science" doesn't claim that.

If I don't see your good evidence for "no gods" then that does not mean that Gods exist, it is just that I believe in one of them,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or to put it another way,,,,,,,,,,,I lack a belief in your evidence for "no gods",,,,,,,,,,,,,, which evidence you seem not to have anyway.

I'm sorry to say at this point, but it doesn't appear that you are able to grasp the basic rules of logic and reason.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Just curious k. Do you reject evolution as a whole or only the darwinian theory?

He said he was away for a month or two.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Unless you are a seven year old girl any rational mind won't believe in unicorns at any level above zero.

I can write this sentence:

I believe in the healing power of Jesus due to his scrifice for the sake of humanity, at 0%.

In the modern world, fleas can see out of their bom-bom.

Just ask any cyclopic sheep.

I bet you thought that was impossible, as well.

What do you see as the major difficulty in making a unicorn?

I mean, besides a lack of imagination.

And your lack of imagination appears cultural to me.

Making a unicorn requires the tools of science, and the main stumbling block is scientism, which results in a lack of imagination.

You’ve never been a seven year old girl, have you?

Do seven year old girls look stupid to you?

They aren’t.

And some of them have very wealthy parents, who would pay a lot for a unicorn. So there’s certainly a market for unicorns.

Maybe it won’t be legal for other reasons, but don’t confuse potential legal restrictions on genetic engineering with prohibitions based on scientism.

Those are quite different concerns.

Scientism handcuffs science for its own internal reasons, not because of any legitimate social concerns that the law may need to address.

Jessica Darrow - Surface Pressure (From "Encanto")​

 

[F1fan]

In the modern world, fleas can see out of their bom-bom.

Just ask any cyclopic sheep.

I bet you thought that was impossible, as well.

What do you see as the major difficulty in making a unicorn?

I mean, besides a lack of imagination.

And your lack of imagination appears cultural to me.

Making a unicorn requires the tools of science, and the main stumbling block is scientism, which results in a lack of imagination.

You’ve never been a seven year old girl, have you?

Do seven year old girls look stupid to you?

They aren’t.

And some of them have very wealthy parents, who would pay a lot for a unicorn. So there’s certainly a market for unicorns.

Maybe it won’t be legal for other reasons, but don’t confuse potential legal restrictions on genetic engineering with prohibitions based on scientism.

Those are quite different concerns.

Scientism handcuffs science for its own internal reasons, not because of any legitimate social concerns that the law may need to address.

Jessica Darrow - Surface Pressure (From "Encanto")​

The following is my in depth answers to your questions.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

The following is my in depth answers to your questions.

No problem.

I can wait.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well I suppose we can deal with abiogenesis when someone does actually make living things from chemicals.

Living things are composed of chemicals.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since science does not say that a living spirit God does not exist, that means that science does not say that chemicals are the basis of life.
If however you are talking about biological life, the word "biological" does tells us that chemicals are involved.



We are talking about different things, as I said. Biological life has chemicals and for abiogenesis, these chemicals need to be able to form bodies fairly easily. This does not mean that chemicals are the basis of what life it. Scientists disagree on how to define "life" but I bet they are talking about "biological organisms" and not about what "life" actually is. IOW can chemicals only become a living organism or is there something else also which is needed.



Look at what I am replying to in post 1213

• #1,213

and you might notice that I am replying to your insult to theists/creationists and that I am not insulting scientists, but am tongue in cheek insulting atheists.
And also remember that when I say "life" I am meaning the thing that animates chemicals and makes them alive. When you say "life" you seem to mean "biological organisms".



You have no interest in the evidence I have to offer.

How would you know that unless you present it?

 

[PureX]

Living things are composed of chemicals.

The "composed" part being the 'design'.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Ok, because maybe your god doesn't exist and your reply is totally based on your fantasy about your god's existence. Why, if your god exists, was he so affilicted?
And no, eating an apple without being told not to is not an excuse.

Told: don't eat from the forbidden tree at Genesis 2:17
Not God, but a wicked angel challenges all of us that under adverse conditions we would Not serve or be faithful to God
Both Jesus and the man Job under adverse conditions proved that wicked angel to be the liar and so can the rest of us
The passing of time has allowed, Not only that challenge, but allowed the time for us to be born that otherwise would Not happen

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The apple was a metaphor for whatever it was, you well know that that is not the point.
But feel free to give us your version.

Un-named forbidden fruit apple in the Bible, but people outside of what the Bible says chose the apple
People chose the apple as the un-named forbidden fruit because when you cut an apple in half the seeds make a 5-point star

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Unless you are a seven year old girl any rational mind won't believe in unicorns at any level above zero.

I can write this sentence:

I believe in the healing power of Jesus due to his scrifice for the sake of humanity, at 0%.

What about the healing powers of brujeria?

That’s a matter of history.