There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Robert.Evans]

No Robert, I have said nothing of the sort.

Sorry Robert, but you can not calculate the probability of things being as they are, it is a nonsense.

Robert, I don't mean to be rude - but Dawkins is a BIOLOGIST, not a cosmologist - the multiverse is COSMOLOGY.

Fine tuning is a nonsense.

Well sir, that is your opinion. I do not speak of my own here, this is science that says this. So you argument is with them. To dismiss odds is foolish I think sir. Perhaps you woudl like to explain why you do not like the argument in the first place.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The "Wow, that's really, really complicated! Therefore god." argument is just contemptible intellectual laziness.

Complex things often arise from simple processes. Snowflakes, for example.

It's hilarious how creationists omit to mention selection or constraints when they rant about randomness.

I am not a creationist. I believe in evolution, sir.

It is also amazing, if I may ridicule you somewhat as you have done me, sir, that plain obvious facts are ignored.

Things which are unlikely to happen, do not happen. That is fact. So how is everything here? That is a valid question sir.

What is your bottom line? Where and how does it arrive? I speak of everything, not life on this planet.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The "Wow, that's really, really complicated! Therefore god." argument is just contemptible intellectual laziness.

Complex things often arise from simple processes. Snowflakes, for example.

By the way, I would not want you to think that just because you have explained something through a physical process, that that means you have explained anything at all. You have not. I already believe in those physical processes.

'snowflakes' for example, are fractal, they follow the fractal nature of the consciousness of God.

Consciousness is everything. They come from something simple to something complex as that is how the fractal nature of God works.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Think of it this way - the fine tuning argument is like exclaiming astonishment that your legs are the exact same length as the distance from your rear to the ground.

No it is not. That is just a philosophical argument intended to muddy the waters of the mind and stop discussion, sir.

 

[Sonofason]

It can be either natural or artificial (human-controlled). Natural selection is a pretty logical process, even accepted by most creationists. Don't forget that it is just as much at work in micro-evolution as macro-evolution. You don't have to accept macro-evolution to accept natural selection.

Do you know how natural selection works? Do you know how scientists define it? If not, it can be explained pretty easily.

Do you know that bears are natural creatures. Did you know that everything that a bear does is natural? Do you know that human beings are natural creatures? Did you know that everything that a human being does is natural.

Tell me, what is unnatural about a human being developing language?
Or tell me, what is unnatural about a human being making tools?
Or tell me, what is artificial about human beings, or the doings of human beings?

Robert Evans had asked?
"Where does the 'selection' process come from? Are you going to say it is natural?"

Please note, that the discussion was about "natural selection".

And your interjection was, "It can be either natural or artificial (human-controlled)."

What exactly about human beings are you suggesting is artificial?

Are you suggesting that something can exist in this universe that is artificial, or unnatural?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Do you know that bears are natural creatures. Did you know that everything that a bear does is natural? Do you know that human beings are natural creatures? Did you know that everything that a human being does is natural.

Tell me, what is unnatural about a human being developing language?
Or tell me, what is unnatural about a human being making tools?
Or tell me, what is artificial about human beings, or the doings of human beings?

Robert Evans had asked?
"Where does the 'selection' process come from? Are you going to say it is natural?"

Please note, that the discussion was about "natural selection".

And your interjection was, "It can be either natural or artificial (human-controlled)."

What exactly about human beings are you suggesting is artificial?

Are you suggesting that something can exist in this universe that is artificial, or unnatural?

haha I think so sir, I think so. When all things are natural, what then are we talking about??

Instead of, God did it, we now have, Natural did it. Is that supposed to be better?!? haha

 

[Iti oj]

Do you know that bears are natural creatures. Did you know that everything that a bear does is natural? Do you know that human beings are natural creatures? Did you know that everything that a human being does is natural.

Tell me, what is unnatural about a human being developing language?
Or tell me, what is unnatural about a human being making tools?
Or tell me, what is artificial about human beings, or the doings of human beings?

Robert Evans had asked?
"Where does the 'selection' process come from? Are you going to say it is natural?"

Please note, that the discussion was about "natural selection".

And your interjection was, "It can be either natural or artificial (human-controlled)."

What exactly about human beings are you suggesting is artificial?

Are you suggesting that something can exist in this universe that is artificial, or unnatural?

I think humans have reached the point of being a "force of nature" . You make a good point. The distinction is made for good reason though. Natural selection reffers to a process that happens with out intelligent guidance, artificial section refers to humans intelligently guiding the process, Chickens as they are would never have existed with out us. Domestication is a better word. Another thing to consider Humans i think are operating under neither , natural or artificial selection, theirs no selection pressure on us at all.

 

[Iti oj]

haha I think so sir, I think so. When all things are natural, what then are we talking about??

Instead of, God did it, we now have, Natural did it. Is that supposed to be better?!? haha

Well I don't know any one who says natural did it...nice stramen though.

 

[Sonofason]

I think humans have reached the point of being a "force of nature" . You make a good point. The distinction is made for good reason though. Natural selection reffers to a process that happens with out intelligent guidance, artificial section refers to humans intelligently guiding the process, Chickens as they are would never have existed with out us. Domestication is a better word. Another thing to consider Humans i think are operating under neither , natural or artificial selection, theirs no selection pressure on us at all.

It seems a bit arrogant to recon one's self as being a "force of nature", although I can certainly see how one could come to that conclusion.

I'm sure the chickens are grateful.

Yes, we no longer appear to work under natural selection. I suppose one could say, we've stopped evolving. But yes, as for natural selection, we defy it. But it does seem to me that we are indeed operating under the process of "artificial selection". We defy natural pathogenic bacteria that would kill off the weak in our populations, by producing short term vaccines, thus enabling weak genetics to remain in the population.

But then the pathogens are still evolving, aren't they, getting perhaps stronger, and more and more resistant to the vaccines we create in our attempts to stop them.

In my estimation, time will tell, if we are still working under the process of natural selection. I imagine it's way too soon to tell. My guess, many will die, and Nature is going to catch up to us.

 

[Iti oj]

It seems a bit arrogant to recon one's self as being a "force of nature", although I can certainly see how one could come to that conclusion.

I'm sure the chickens are grateful.

Yes, we no longer appear to work under natural selection. I suppose one could say, we've stopped evolving. But yes, as for natural selection, we defy it. But it does seem to me that we are indeed operating under the process of "artificial selection". We defy natural pathogenic bacteria that would kill off the weak in our populations, by producing short term vaccines, thus enabling weak genetics to remain in the population.

But then the pathogens are still evolving, aren't they, getting perhaps stronger, and more and more resistant to the vaccines we create in our attempts to stop them.

In my estimation, time will tell, if we are still working under the process of natural selection. I imagine it's way too soon to tell. My guess, many will die, and Nature is going to catch up to us.

Humans are the leading force behind the current extinction rate. We are altering the face of the planet. We are altering the weather patterns. WE can cause or increase earthquakes, We could at any point cause a nuclear winter. If that's not a force I don't know what is. I say natural because as stated above we are natural and occurred naturally. Like you said you can see how one would draw that conclusion, so what would you call that then?
I wouldnt say e are under artificial l selection considering we aren't doing any selecting at all. Most live and most breed. traits are not being selected be either natural processes or by our own intellect. To me, that's no selection.

I doubt the chickens are gratfull. They are inable to live wildly. We kill of most of the male chicks, and pumping out that many eggs is terrible burden for their bodies.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Natural selection reffers to a process that happens with out intelligent guidance,

So what then is 'natural'?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well I don't know any one who says natural did it...nice stramen though.

If one is saying that all things are natural, then are they not saying that 'natural did it'? If not, what then did?
They do not have to use those exact words. So I think there is no need for straw

 

[LuisDantas]

So what then is 'natural'?

In Natural Selection? It is so called because it is the selection of those who will survive and attain future generations, and because it happens naturally (without a purposeful choice from others).

There is artificial selection as well, which has long been used to breed animals and crops.

 

[Iti oj]

If one is saying that all things are natural, then are they not saying that 'natural did it'? If not, what then did?
They do not have to use those exact words. So I think there is no need for straw

No, not in the slightest.Nothing did, no intent, no being. Its nothing but a false dichotomy and a strawmen. A purposeful misrepresentation. Tell me do you even know what a natural process is? Can you define natural selection? Do you know the "laws" of physics?

 

[Robert.Evans]

It seems a bit arrogant to recon one's self as being a "force of nature", although I can certainly see how one could come to that conclusion.

I'm sure the chickens are grateful.

Yes, we no longer appear to work under natural selection. I suppose one could say, we've stopped evolving. But yes, as for natural selection, we defy it. But it does seem to me that we are indeed operating under the process of "artificial selection". We defy natural pathogenic bacteria that would kill off the weak in our populations, by producing short term vaccines, thus enabling weak genetics to remain in the population.

But then the pathogens are still evolving, aren't they, getting perhaps stronger, and more and more resistant to the vaccines we create in our attempts to stop them.

In my estimation, time will tell, if we are still working under the process of natural selection. I imagine it's way too soon to tell. My guess, many will die, and Nature is going to catch up to us.

For arguments sake, let us look at it this way: if one is to say there is no God, then everything is called 'natural'. What then is the difference on something outside of 'us' changing us, or 'us' doing it 'artificially'? If all things are natural, where is the distinction?

And if it is not natural, then what is it? If it is the consciousness of God, I see then a difference, but without it, I see natural working on natural on a natural way... naturally! How does that then make sense? What is the difference in saying God did it?

 

[LuisDantas]

If one is saying that all things are natural, then are they not saying that 'natural did it'? If not, what then did?
They do not have to use those exact words. So I think there is no need for straw

I suppose you can think in terms of "who/what did it" for natural selection much as you can for rain, volcanic eruptions, gravity or magnetic attraction and repulsion.

Personally, I would advise against courting with language that hints at conscious intent where there is no hint of any, though.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Humans are the leading force behind the current extinction rate. We are altering the face of the planet. We are altering the weather patterns. WE can cause or increase earthquakes, We could at any point cause a nuclear winter. If that's not a force I don't know what is.

One might say that we act like the gods

I say natural because as stated above we are natural and occurred naturally.

haha... again I have to ask, what does that mean? "We are natural and occurred naturally"... what does it mean? Are you comparing it with supernatural? If so, be aware that anything which is 'above and beyond' the norm, in super-natural. It does not imply it is some kind of magic

Like you said you can see how one would draw that conclusion, so what would you call that then?
I wouldnt say e are under artificial l selection considering we aren't doing any selecting at all. Most live and most breed. traits are not being selected be either natural processes or by our own intellect. To me, that's no selection.

I think you will 'select' your partner because of certain traits

I doubt the chickens are gratfull. They are inable to live wildly. We kill of most of the male chicks, and pumping out that many eggs is terrible burden for their bodies.

I think it was a tongue in cheek jest.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is the difference in saying God did it?

The difference I can see is in the perception of a purpose, intent or goal. Natural things just happen as they do. Things that God does are supposedly meant to.

I guess there is not necessarily a distinction between the two classifications, but then one has to wonder whether God makes any difference at all, let alone whether it makes sense to hold any conception of God.

 

[Robert.Evans]

In Natural Selection? It is so called because it is the selection of those who will survive and attain future generations, and because it happens naturally (without a purposeful choice from others).

There is artificial selection as well, which has long been used to breed animals and crops.

And how does it 'select' when it has no intelligence? And how is that 'natural' anyway. What is natural??? What does it mean???

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, not in the slightest.Nothing did, no intent, no being. Its nothing but a false dichotomy and a strawmen. A purposeful misrepresentation. Tell me do you even know what a natural process is? Can you define natural selection? Do you know the "laws" of physics?

How can 'nothing' do it? No intent? So you are saying it is luck then?

Let us try and keep with the theme.