Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[QuestioningMind]

Then ignore the thread.

Please.

Or post something that refutes it.

I'm tired of reading only contrary opinions.

Still waiting for you to write something to refute. NOTHING you posted comes even close to being evidence for an intelligent designer. IF you actually think that it IS then point out HOW.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

My non-scientific observations.
There are four fundamental forces in nature with keep things changing. Maybe some intelligence set this up but there is no evidence of this. You can believe as you wish, Jehova, some other God, Alien scientists doing an experiment. Pick whatever suits your fancy, just don't have any expectation of convincing anyone else of your choice of what to believe.

Evolution = change. There are 18000 or so new species discovered every year. Maybe 2000 or so species go extinct. Life began about 3.5 billion years ago. Billions of mutations creating new species. Some survived many didn't. Homo sapiens was a series of successful mutations. Not because of design but because of accidental mutations allowed humans to survive. Each other species each having gone through billions of mutations like us. Most species didn't survive. Those that did happen to mutate in a why that promoted their survival.

We see the evolutionary successes and think, wow, there must have been some intelligence guiding this to allow our species to survive through all of these billions of years. However we can't even fathom numerically the numbers of mutations which failed to allow a species to survive.

Even our species almost went extinct 3 times in our past.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/close-calls-three-times-when-the-human-race-barely-esc-1730998797

No guarantee Homo Sapien will survive the next thousand or so years. Maybe we will mutate into a new species.

It is hard to fathom how we got here. However ancient tribes created stories of how they can to be with even less information about our past than we have now. How much sense does it make to accept any of these stories as fact?

You seem quite reasonable. What's your take on ghosts, or other paranormal activity?
There's many on this forum, who claim to speak with spirit guides, or dead ancestors, or experience strange events using Ouija boards or other occult devices / activities.

Are these ones "making it up"?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yeah he did, cowboy. He ripped apart each and every argument you made and you had absolutely no viable response to any of it. It IS sad and pathetic that instead of responding, you ran over here to try again and just hope no one noticed. But then, I notice that you do that quite a lot.

Then show me the post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then ignore the thread.

Please.

Or post something that refutes it.

I'm tired of reading only contrary opinions.

The observation that you posted no evidence alone "refutes the thread".

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's sort of easy to figure out, but I realize that you're not inclined toward a spiritual / Biblical understanding.... you and I and everyone here will possibly die. That wasn't part of Jehovah's original design, either.

Be that as it may, design is evident everywhere...including in nature, in the Laws that control it, and in the interaction between them.

If it is "evident" then it is rather logical to conclude that there has to be evidence. Where is the scientific evidence for your claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then show me the post.

Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The observation that you posted no evidence alone "refutes the thread".

Lol! You need me to post evidence for 'billions of species'?

Or that flora release oxygen for us to breathe in, and we (and animals) release CO2 for plants to take in?

Or the symbiosis between many different organisms, the anemone and clownfish being just one

Maybe you want evidence of the nitrogen cycle?

Or the water cycle?

It all has purpose.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Then show me the post.

Why should I bother? You completely ignored his responses in your other thread and you're likely to do so here as well. In fact, you'll just run away from this thread and go start another one, like you always do. Anyone who wants to look can go check it out. Heck, anyone who's read any of your posts already knows what I'm talking about.

 

[shmogie]

Typical atheist response. sarcasm, and belittling.

You demand evidence, then when one posts what they think is evidence, you go into the standup routine.

Why not address his points ? You seem to be an expert in evolution, and know where to find all the refutation.

This is the new atheist approach, all based in patronizing. smug superiority.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why should I bother? You completely ignored his responses in your other thread and you're likely to do so here as well. In fact, you'll just run away from this thread and go start another one, like you always do. Anyone who wants to look can go check it out. Heck, anyone who's read any of your posts already knows what I'm talking about.

No, the one pointed out to me, is one I commented on.... You think that was 'shredding' my argument?

Hah! He posted no refutations at all.

Be happy in your cocoon.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Typical atheist response. sarcasm, and belittling.

You demand evidence, then when one posts what they think is evidence, you go into the standup routine.

Why not address his points ? You seem to be an expert in evolution, and know where to find all the refutation.

This is the new atheist approach, all based in patronizing. smug superiority.

They're following in Richard Dawkins' footsteps. It's called the 'two-step shuffle', lol.

I remember, he plainly said for his "followers" to 'deride and make fun of' IDers/ creationists.

That really supports healthy dialogue, don't it?! It's just suppression in disguise.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

1) Purposeful interactive systems. Like between flora and fauna (carbon dioxide, and oxygen reciprocation.) Even down to the clownfish / anemone symbiosis. (Evolution explains that developed, how exactly?) It is design.

2) The Cambrian Explosion. Separate creative events. (Where are the obvious precursors? Surely they’re there...right?) The mammalian Explosion, 66 mya, is similar.

3) The sheer diversity of organic body plans. Those living and extinct, it numbers over a billion species! (Darwinian processes have no evident creative power, to explain such scale we observe.... oops, there’s empirical data again!)

4) Irreducibly complex systems. Like the bacterial flagellar motor (which apparently came after the T3SS), the blood-clotting cascade, and others, suggested by Behe.

(I was told, by @Dan From Smithville , that this has been refuted...but he provided no reference.)

These are just some obstacles to evolutionary mechanisms. But these evidences support an Intelligence behind them. Antony Flew finally recognized this.

The purposeful nature of these examples, indeed of all systems, imply design.

Many organisms attack humans (and other creatures) and make us sick, even kill us.
Was this part of the original design? No.
Adam’s rebellion created many problems. But when we read Isaiah 11:6-9, esp.vs 9, it tells us that peace “will” exist, according to Jehovah’s purpose. Ephesians 1:10 states God’s will is “to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth, through Christ.”

More evidence will be posted.

If species were "intelligently" designed, why have 99% of the species that have ever existed gone extinct?

Furthermore, if God is all-knowing, then he knew that Adam would rebel against him, meaning that Adam's rebellion was already determined. Thus, Adam cannot be responsible for his action of rebellion since it was already determined.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, the one pointed out to me, is one I commented on.... You think that was 'shredding' my argument?

Hah! He posted no refutations at all.

Be happy in your cocoon.

ROFL... again, anyone can take the time to look and see that you completely IGNORE posts that you have no response for. Like in this OP, I'm STILL waiting to hear what you consider that you wrote that constitutes any sort of evidence for an intelligent designer.

 

[Heyo]

4) Irreducibly complex systems. Like the bacterial flagellar motor (which apparently came after the T3SS), the blood-clotting cascade, and others, suggested by Behe.

(I was told, by @Dan From Smithville , that this has been refuted...but he provided no reference.)

1.) I think you are aware of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, aren't you? The court found that ID was not science and "irreducibly complex systems" had been shown not to be.

2.) Do you only have a problem with evolutionary biology or with science in general?

3.) Do you think that there is a conspiracy in science that secretly prevents non-mainstream papers from being published?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

if God is all-knowing, then he knew that Adam would rebel against him, meaning that Adam's rebellion was already determined. Thus, Adam cannot be responsible for his action of rebellion since it was already determined

The book of Jonah, alone, tells us that your pov is wrong.

Genesis 18 disclosed that your view of God is wrong.

(We've gone over this before.)

 

[Nakosis]

You seem quite reasonable. What's your take on ghosts, or other paranormal activity?
There's many on this forum, who claim to speak with spirit guides, or dead ancestors, or experience strange events using Ouija boards or other occult devices / activities.

Are these ones "making it up"?

As I see it, the unconscious mind is our interface to reality. Our conscious awareness takes up at most 5% of our brain function. The other 95% is off doing God knows what.

So when you dream, you ever notice how you have other folks in your dreams acting autonomously? They act and speak without you consciously controlling them. So, your unconscious mind can create autonomous entities for you to interact with. I suspect our experience of spiritual interactions are a creations of our unconscious mind. While our unconscious mind is part of our brain, it acts as almost a separate entity since we are not consciously aware whats happening with it.

So I'm pretty certain the unconscious mind is capable of creating an autonomous entity for us to consciously interact with. Folks raise as a Christian, the unconscious mind has a lot of data to work with in creating God/Jesus/a Holy Spirit. I see this as a strong possibility. Doesn't mean these can't actually exist externally, it is as possible IMO these are created internally in the unconscious mind. Muses, spirits of the dead, whatever we come to believe, the unconscious mind is capable of creating an entity to support that belief.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The book of Jonah, alone, tells us that your pov is wrong.

Genesis 18 disclosed that your view of God is wrong.

(We've gone over this before.)

So you don't believe in an all-knowing god? BTW, you didn't address my question about 99% of species going extinct...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol! You need me to post evidence for 'billions of species'?

Or that flora release oxygen for us to breathe in, and we (and animals) release CO2 for plants to take in?

Or the symbiosis between many different organisms, the anemone and clownfish being just one

Maybe you want evidence of the nitrogen cycle?

Or the water cycle?

It all has purpose.

You need to define your terms. You need to justify your terms. And most important of all you must learn what scientific evidence is in the first place.

But perhaps I could save you some time. What reasonable test could possibly show your concept to be wrong? Reasonable means that it must pass or fail on its own merits. Not based upon the merits of another concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They're following in Richard Dawkins' footsteps. It's called the 'two-step shuffle', lol.

I remember, he plainly said for his "followers" to 'deride and make fun of' IDers/ creationists.

That really supports healthy dialogue, don't it?! It's just suppression in disguise.

As a supposed Christian you really should not break the Ninth Commandment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Typical atheist response. sarcasm, and belittling.

You demand evidence, then when one posts what they think is evidence, you go into the standup routine.

Why not address his points ? You seem to be an expert in evolution, and know where to find all the refutation.

This is the new atheist approach, all based in patronizing. smug superiority.

He made no points. That is why he earned the so called sarcasm and belittling.