Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

"Are you actually trying to make us believe that a god on and off for a period of 4 billion years sat down and personally designed and then assembled the DNA of millions upon millions of organisms, most of which are extinct now? Or what exactly is it you want us to believe?" Just give us some details so we know what we're supposed to believe Deeje.

Stevevw has given an eloquent reply.

And no one wants you to believe anything against your will....not even the Creator. If you don't believe, then there is nothing more to say. It's your choice as to what you accept as the truth.

It's just very obvious to me and to a lot of other "believers" that the Creator designed things to be self-replicating and self-sufficient, just like the environment in which he placed them is self-sustaining. Trees take in Co2 and breathe out o2. We breathe in o2 and breathe out Co2....Amazing co-incidence eh?

Water is found in abundance on this unique planet.....yet most of it is not available for land dwellers to drink. If the moisture in salty oceans did not condense and gather it together to form rain clouds to dump fresh water on land, nothing could live except marine creatures. Is precipitation just another co-incidence?

Complex Eco-systems work brilliantly, constantly recycling and keeping things clean and under control.....all without human intervention or even direct intervention from its Maker.

It works really well until men of science start mucking everything up.

Science is responsible for most of the earth's pollution. For every good thing they produce, there are many more detrimental "side effects" from their productions. Short sighted and financially driven.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's your choice as to what you accept as the truth.

If this is true, then you should be able to become an atheist for a week (genuinely accepting it as the truth) and then go back to your faith.

 

[Quantum Ape]

I know of nothing designed that did not have a designer....these are exquisitely designed.

Who can deny that?

Then who designed the designer?Separating yourself from nature leads to thinking someone else must have done it.

 

[Deeje]

No designer evident here......

Yep, all just accidents of nature.
One wonders what forces were at work to produce such variety of design and color coordination?

Its like an art gallery, but evolutionists say there is no artist.

 

[Quantum Ape]

No designer evident here......

Yep, all just accidents of nature.
One wonders what forces were at work to produce such variety of design and color coordination?

Its like an art gallery, but evolutionists say there is no artist.

We are all the artist. Co-creating together. Everything there ever was and is.. is happening right now and we're all of it. The universe experiencing itself.

It's a beautiful art gallery. We're the artist, the art, and the museum.

 

[Deeje]

Please explain......

 

[Deeje]

We are all the artist. Co-creating together. Everything there ever was and is.. is happening right now and we're all of it. The universe experiencing itself.

It's a beautiful art gallery. We're the artist, the art, and the museum.

Seriously...we are the ones defacing the artist's work.

 

[Quantum Ape]

Seriously...we are the ones defacing the artist's work.

We are defacing our own nature by announcing the word god. Nature is god. We are all nature. We are a whirlpooling of humankind. Just as the trees blossom, the earth humans. We are all the same thing only we are caught up in our own experience.

 

[Darkstorn]

And I claim that you are being optimistic for posting that many claims and expecting me to respond to them.

Hence me calling you dishonest. Why did you respond with an equally long post filled with equally many claims and then abandon the discussion the moment it gets too hard for you to cope with?

Is it really too difficult for you to answer all those points seeing as i had to do it to you? Are you admitting that you cannot do it?

You are being dishonest as hell here. You are showing it to me again. You just hand-wave my entire argument "away" with a statement that i'm optimistic for expecting you to respond to my post in your very thread. Oh, and another smiley. Here's the thing: You didn't do enough for it to go away. It's still there, unanswered by yourself.

At least admit that the reason you're not saying anything is because you have nothing to say instead of trying another distraction.

LOL....a distraction from what? If you look through this very long thread, you will probably find all the answers you are looking for......

No i won't. I was addressing you specifically. I've read the entire thread. You are trying to distract people from noticing that you fail to reply to people who manage to argue you sufficiently enough to make yourself look like an example of Poe's law.

can't be bothered looking through thousands of replies? Neither can I.

I've read the entire thread. At least show some iota of honesty here and do the same.

You replied to me, i replied to you, and you go "i can't be bothered to answer now" as if that somehow saves you from the consequences? Here's the consequence: We can all see you avoiding discussion in your own thread. That doesn't strengthen whatever points you were trying to make at all.

Why did you bother to reply to me in the first place? Were you just expecting for it to end there with your supposedly well-thought-out reply? You're not actually looking for discussion, just a place to vent your agenda?!

Dishonest you are.

 

[Pudding]

Yep, all just accidents of nature.

Who said it's all just accidents of nature?
Please cite evidence to support your claim.

evolutionists say there is no artist.

Do you mean to say all evolutionists say there is no artist?
Please cite evidence to support your claim.

 

[Polymath257]

I always find the use of the term 'accident' to be interesting. What is an 'accident'? Typically, it is something done by an intelligent agent that is not paying attention, thereby producing unintended consequences.

This isn't what happens in evolution!

There is no intelligent agent involved in the evolutionary process. So, the results are NOT an accident. They *are*, however, results of mutation and natural selection, possibly with genetic drift.

We wouldn't say that the results of natural laws are accidental. They don't have a conscious agent involved, so the category simply doesn't apply.

And, yes, mutation with natural selection *can* produce incredible levels of complexity. Since that seems to be the main point where disbelief enters, it might be helpful for those who don't think the two powerful enough to produce what is seen to perform some simple experiments allowing mutation and selection and see how rapidly solutions to problems are obtained that are close to optimal. The whole process is now called 'genetic programming'. And it works.

 

[Pudding]

I always find the use of the term 'accident' to be interesting. What is an 'accident'? Typically, it is something done by an intelligent agent that is not paying attention, thereby producing unintended consequences.

I think 'accident' means an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause (God).

There is no intelligent agent involved in the evolutionary process.

How do you verify this statement?

They don't have a conscious agent involved

How do you verify this statement?

 

[Polymath257]

I think 'accident' means an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause (God)

OK, so the decay of a nucleus is 'accidental' because it happens by chance? That seems like a funny use of the word. A tree falling in the forest is 'accidental' because there isn't a 'deliberate cause'? Again, a funny use of the word, at least to me.

How do you verify this statement?


How do you verify this statement?

No verification required. The hypothesis isn't required to explain the phenomena.

 

[Pudding]

OK, so the decay of a nucleus is 'accidental' because it happens by chance? That seems like a funny use of the word. A tree falling in the forest is 'accidental' because there isn't a 'deliberate cause'? Again, a funny use of the word, at least to me.

That is my guess about Deeje's definition for it. My guessing definition is talking about things exist without God create them, i'm not refer to the decay of nucleus or tree falling.
You have to ask her what she means by accidents of nature.

No verification required.

You make claims, you then say you don't need to provide evidence to support your claims.
Why do you think you don't need to provide evidence to support your claims?

The hypothesis isn't required to explain the phenomena.

I don't understand your meaning.

 

[savagewind]

I always find the use of the term 'accident' to be interesting. What is an 'accident'? Typically, it is something done by an intelligent agent that is not paying attention, thereby producing unintended consequences.

This isn't what happens in evolution!

There is no intelligent agent involved in the evolutionary process. So, the results are NOT an accident. They *are*, however, results of mutation and natural selection, possibly with genetic drift.

We wouldn't say that the results of natural laws are accidental. They don't have a conscious agent involved, so the category simply doesn't apply.

And, yes, mutation with natural selection *can* produce incredible levels of complexity. Since that seems to be the main point where disbelief enters, it might be helpful for those who don't think the two powerful enough to produce what is seen to perform some simple experiments allowing mutation and selection and see how rapidly solutions to problems are obtained that are close to optimal. The whole process is now called 'genetic programming'. And it works.

This is interesting so I did a little research. You are right about the word accident and I am going to call you SMART.
I think the right word, instead of accident, might be inadvertent.

 

[Jose Fly]

Again you avoid a set of questions Deeje.

Which one of these statements is not correct?

One cannot be an "evolutionist" and a Jehovah's Witness.

If you were to become an "evolutionist", you would have to leave the Jehovah's Witnesses.

If you were to no longer be a Jehovah's Witness, your friends and family who remained in the faith would shun you until you returned to the faith.​

 

[savagewind]

Again you avoid a set of questions Deeje.

Which one of these statements is not correct?

One cannot be an "evolutionist" and a Jehovah's Witness.

If you were to become an "evolutionist", you would have to leave the Jehovah's Witnesses.

If you were to no longer be a Jehovah's Witness, your friends and family who remained in the faith would shun you until you returned to the faith.​

I think this is what she calls "being persecuted". LOL

 

[savagewind]

By the way, I think I know the right answer to post #3136

 

[Jose Fly]

I think this is what she calls "being persecuted". LOL

Pretty delicate and sensitive to think questions are persecution.

 

[savagewind]

Pretty delicate and sensitive to think questions are persecution.

I agree with you.

They* believe that disagreements are persecution.

*some of them

A person can't be a JWs if he verbally and persistently disagrees with the One Mind thing. That is what I do. I am a certifiable troll according to my dear, dear friend @Deeje
Haha. I only do it online so I am not a disfellowshipped JW. Which just goes to prove to me that Jesus doesn't care about the One Mind.