The watchmaker

[nPeace]

No, you are projecting your flaws upon others. Scientists merely look for evidence and analyze the evidence. Where is the evidence for your designer? None can be found that I know of.

Wait! Have you been reading through this thread from its OP?

By the way, if you can't give an example then you are almost surely bearing false witness against others. The Ninth Commandment is more than a ban on lying. If you attack someone, as you just have, then you need to be able to support that claim. It does not matter if you believe your claim, you could be wrong. That would make it false witness. As a Christian you should tread lightly when making claims about others.

Of course. See above.

 

[nPeace]

There is no such evidence that I know of. And at least this time you are not bearing false witness against others. You are merely spewing nonsense. If you know that there is evidence then you can present it. It looks like all you have is mere belief and your belief is obviously wrong.

Listen. I was merely showing what you are doing.
The post was really demonstrating you.

You just respond to post with statements and give no reason, no explanation - It's like dry bones with no flesh.

You

Arguments from ignorance are never very convincing.

things make themselves every day without a designer. Did you skip out on sex ed in school? The stork "theory" is not taken seriously by anyone.

Where is the meat that we can pick at?
Add some flesh to those bones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you give one reason why the beginning would require a creator?

By the same "logic" that you used to claim that the universe needs one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait! Have you been reading through this thread from its OP?

Off and on. No evidence for a designer was presented. You probably do not even understand the concept, as I already pointed out.

Of course. See above.

That does not help you. As a supposed Christian you should not be bearing false witness against others. If you can't support your claims, and you have not been able to, they are more than likely wrong. That once again means that when you use your false claims to attacks others that you are bearing false witness even if you believe those claims. Try to base your arguments on evidence instead of false beleifs.

 

[nPeace]

The problem is with the UFO example is that you might not be able to tell that it was built. You are once again assuming that it was built in the same way we build things. And no, man was never built. There is no evidence for that that I know of and you have not been able to provide any. Meanwhile I can provide evidence for man's evolution. But I am betting that "evidence" is a concept that you do not understand either.

And of course for a UFO all we would have is speculation and guesswork. Interstellar travel may very well be impossible. You brought up an example that requires speculation and guess work and when shown to be wrong you complained about that. That is highly hypocritical on your part. You should have just admitted that you used a poor example.

Now this is more like it.
I am assuming - I prefer the word inferring from 1) prior knowledge of 2) what has been observed, 3) hence logic, and 4) the current demonstrated evidence verifies it... until shown otherwise.

You cannot show 1) that life formed by undirected processes, 2) that a universal common ancestor evolved to other organisms - much less existed, 3) that man evolved from anything.
So no. Your evidence too, depends on inference, or as you say - speculation.

Whose complaining? You?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Listen. I was merely showing what you are doing.
The post was really demonstrating you.

You just respond to post with statements and give no reason, no explanation - It's like dry bones with no flesh.

You

No, you weren't. You were merely trying to defend your ignorance. If you ask me a proper question I will answer it. I will not answer questions on the order of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?". In other words no questions with false assumptions in them. You one the other hand run when people ask you proper questions.

Where is the meat that we can pick at?
Add some flesh to those bones.

Those are conclusions from observations. Quoting out of context is also usually used as an attempt to lie. Can you debate properly? No out of context quotes. When you use a source it should be a reliable one with links to it.

 

[nPeace]

By the same "logic" that you used to claim that the universe needs one.

How can the beginning be created? Are you thinking, or just speaking?

 

[nPeace]

Off and on. No evidence for a designer was presented. You probably do not even understand the concept, as I already pointed out.



That does not help you. As a supposed Christian you should not be bearing false witness against others. If you can't support your claims, and you have not been able to, they are more than likely wrong. That once again means that when you use your false claims to attacks others that you are bearing false witness even if you believe those claims. Try to base your arguments on evidence instead of false beleifs.

I guess you have no idea what evidence is. Although you believe you do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now this is more like it.
I am assuming - I prefer the word inferring from 1) prior knowledge of 2) what has been observed, 3) hence logic, and 4) the current demonstrated evidence verifies it... until shown otherwise.

You cannot show 1) that life formed by undirected processes, 2) that a universal common ancestor evolved to other organisms - much less existed, 3) that man evolved from anything.
So no. Your evidence too, depends on inference, or as you say - speculation.

Whose complaining? You?

You have it backwards once again. We observe life forming without an outside source of control every day. This confirms my earlier conclusion that you believe in the stork. When new life forms through sexual reproduction it does so without a magical being encouraging it to grow. It merely follows the "recipe" given to it by DNA. I hope you understand that much.

Of course you have to try to shift the burden of proof because you have no evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can the beginning be created? Are you thinking, or just speaking?

What "beginning"? Please don't accuse others of your sins.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess you have no idea what evidence is. Although you believe you do.

Why bear false witness against others? I can explain what evidence is to you. I can demonstrate that there is evidence for evolution. I have yet to see any evidence for your beliefs. If you want to learn what evidence is I will gladly help you with the process.

 

[nPeace]

No, you weren't. You were merely trying to defend your ignorance. If you ask me a proper question I will answer it. I will not answer questions on the order of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?". In other words no questions with false assumptions in them. You one the other hand run when people ask you proper questions.

That won't be you, since you have never asked a proper question.

Those are conclusions from observations. Quoting out of context is also usually used as an attempt to lie. Can you debate properly? No out of context quotes. When you use a source it should be a reliable one with links to it.

Apparently not with you. I'm still waiting for yours.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Then the flower must have been designed. How else do you explain the complex, purposeful function of the watch... and the flower?

But flowers are more complex than just about anything we've thought up. "Designed" things are almost always far more simplistic than any answer in nature.

Walking a distance further and finding a forest - of trees... of course, doesn't address the question either.

Not even Johnny Appleseed designed a forest.

You still need to explain the seed that the tree (and flower) grew from. The complex process involved in the seed existing in the first place.

It's quite easily done. In elementary school, you'll learn the basics.

Interestingly, the processes required for the seed being able to produce the tree, the growth of the tree, etc., are more complex than the simple house. Yet, it took someone to build the house.

But that's just it: the house is the OUTLIER precisely because it doesn't fit with the environment. The house is clearly designed because nature doesn't work that way.

Is it reasonable to conclude that the most complex seed required no one to build it?

Yes. "Designers" want things to be what they want, not what they are. Nature doesn't work that way.

For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.

I don't trust a society that actively forbade just about every kind of knowledge other than scriptural to know anything about how the world works.

Q?

Sorry. Nerd alert: I was referring to an episode of Stark Trek: The Next Generation, where Q, an omnipotent being, took Picard waaaaaay to the past and showed him the failure of microbes to come into being, which resulted in the destruction of life as we knew it.

There is no evidence that anything ever builds itself.

The fact you can watch a tree from acorn to rotting log without any sort of participation by any sentient being.

Therefore, the evidence we currently have, would lead us to infer that everything required a builder.

So, droughts are caused by rain gods dying, then?

If one finds a complex object, and understands, in fact, knows that that complex object did not come about on its own.

That's not true. Objects that don't naturally exist in nature must be manufactured. Objects that exist in nature need not be.

He can use reason and logic, to conclude that objects far more complex would also require a builder - one more advanced in understanding.

But as humans don't know everything, then such "logic" cant' be trusted without evidence. This is like watching a toddler call every furry quadruped a "puppy".

I cannot give you an example though. Fulllstop.
They just do. Fulllstop.

Show us the designer of a rock or a bacterium, not an artificially engineered one, mind you, but natural ones. We'll wait.

The bible likes to compare God as a potter or some other craftsman. However, craftsman don't design the base materials.

God can't even design a human being more than once, if you take Genesis literally. Did He lose the recipe? No other mating pair had to resort to incest with their own twin born of their own body. Why the sudden incompetence?

Point? Whatever it looks like... it was built.

Moya wasn't.
Moya and her child were actually living beings retrofitted to make starships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farscape

Can you give one reason why the beginning would require a creator?

Yah(weh) is the son or grandson or son-in-law or whatever of El, the true High God of the pantheon. God had a creator after all, per the original history of the theology.
(And El was born of Sky and Earth, so even HE was created/born.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

That won't be you, since you have never asked a proper question.

I have done so many times. I do not put false assumptions into my questions. You do not appear to be able to make the same claim honestly.

Apparently not with you. I'm still waiting for yours.

So far I have not needed any sources. If there is something that you do not understand I will gladly explain to you if asked politely and properly.

 

[nPeace]

Why bear false witness against others? I can explain what evidence is to you. I can demonstrate that there is evidence for evolution. I have yet to see any evidence for your beliefs. If you want to learn what evidence is I will gladly help you with the process.

I remember that last time you said you have proof as well.
I asked for it three times, and got nothing but, 'Oh first you have to play by this rule - Swear you will be honest.' Lol. That was funny.

I'm not holding my breath for this one either.
If you know what evidence is. Tell me.

 

[nPeace]

I have done so many times. I do not put false assumptions into my questions. You do not appear to be able to make the same claim honestly.





So far I have not needed any sources. If there is something that you do not understand I will gladly explain to you if asked politely and properly.

We apparently are are opposite ends of the bridge, screaming at each other, 'You go back. Lemme pass.'
Will you be the mature one you claim to be?
I'm the immature one remember, so it is expected, I am not moving - Sorry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I remember that last time you said you have proof as well.
I asked for it three times, and got nothing but, 'Oh first you have to play by this rule - Swear you will be honest.' Lol. That was funny.

I'm not holding my breath for this one either.
If you know what evidence is. Tell me.

Actually I have evidence. Sufficient evidence, and there is more than enough, will convince any rationally thinking person. And what do you need supported by evidence? You need to ask your questions properly and you have not been able to do so.

I know that it is hard for you as a creationist to be honest, but I know that you can be if you try. You merely need to quit being so afraid of being wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We apparently are are opposite ends of the bridge, screaming at each other, 'You go back. Lemme pass.'
Will you be the mature one you claim to be?
I'm the immature one remember, so it is expected, I am not moving - Sorry.

No, once again, I am willing to properly support my claims. All you have been able to do is to make unsupported assertions. Don't try to claim that I am guilty of the same bad behavior that you are guilty of.

Slow down and think clearly of what you would like to ask of me. I will begin with a question for you:

What evidence do you have for your claims? For any of them.

 

[nPeace]

But flowers are more complex than just about anything we've thought up. "Designed" things are almost always far more simplistic than any answer in nature.

Huh? ...and how may I ask, did you arrive at that?

Not even Johnny Appleseed designed a forest.


It's quite easily done. In elementary school, you'll learn the basics.


But that's just it: the house is the OUTLIER precisely because it doesn't fit with the environment. The house is clearly designed because nature doesn't work that way.

Ah. Nature. What makes it nature?

Yes. "Designers" want things to be what they want, not what they are. Nature doesn't work that way.

I interested. How does nature work?

I don't trust a society that actively forbade just about every kind of knowledge other than scriptural to know anything about how the world works.


Sorry. Nerd alert: I was referring to an episode of Stark Trek: The Next Generation, where Q, an omnipotent being, took Picard waaaaaay to the past and showed him the failure of microbes to come into being, which resulted in the destruction of life as we knew it.

Oh right. Sorry Nerds don't watch junk. Guess you didn't know that.

The fact you can watch a tree from acorn to rotting log without any sort of participation by any sentient being.


So, droughts are caused by rain gods dying, then?


That's not true. Objects that don't naturally exist in nature must be manufactured. Objects that exist in nature need not be.

Naturally exist? No science has shown that. No scientist can even recreate it.

But as humans don't know everything, then such "logic" cant' be trusted without evidence. This is like watching a toddler call every furry quadruped a "puppy".

I agree. Thankfully scientists admit it, and say their theories could be wrong.. like... tomorrow.

Show us the designer of a rock or a bacterium, not an artificially engineered one, mind you, but natural ones. We'll wait.

If you can't even show anyone the LUCA, or how it started, why would you ask someone to show you the creator of the universe.
Does that seem reasonable?

The bible likes to compare God as a potter or some other craftsman. However, craftsman don't design the base materials.

Why not? I know of some that do. So no - you have a wrong opinion.

God can't even design a human being more than once, if you take Genesis literally. Did He lose the recipe? No other mating pair had to resort to incest with their own twin born of their own body. Why the sudden incompetence?

Did you just say 'God can't'?
So you believe in God? ... How do you know what God can and cannot do?

Moya wasn't.
Moya and her child were actually living beings retrofitted to make starships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farscape


Yah(weh) is the son or grandson or son-in-law or whatever of El, the true High God of the pantheon. God had a creator after all, per the original history of the theology.
(And El was born of Sky and Earth, so even HE was created/born.)

I don't know what source you are using. My source says
Before the mountains were brought forth,
Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Psalms 90:1, 2

 

[nPeace]

You have it backwards once again. We observe life forming without an outside source of control every day. This confirms my earlier conclusion that you believe in the stork. When new life forms through sexual reproduction it does so without a magical being encouraging it to grow. It merely follows the "recipe" given to it by DNA. I hope you understand that much.

Of course you have to try to shift the burden of proof because you have no evidence for your beliefs.

What did the life form from? Did it form on its own?
Yeah. so ice forms on its own. Mildew forms on its own.
Fruit forms on its own. Hair forms on its own. Good grief.