originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: whereislogic
Where are your facts?
In my commentary all throughout this thread and other threads in this subforum, that's why they're so long, they contain lots of detailed facts
compared with the claims and storylines from evolutionists specifically concerning these facts, or in spite of them (while they have significant
bearing on their claim or some part of their storyline). Where are your
facts that you were referring to? Perhaps that's why your comments are
Where are your numbers?
Where are yours?
Where is anything other than saying the other side is wrong?
What an ironic way of describing things you have. Especially concerning the comment of yours that I responded to, in particular the dogmatic sweeping
statement that I quoted that is so out of touch with reality (and the facts already discussed by me in this thread for example; conveniently ignoring
Where is your explanation of the mechanisms used by "a designer" to craft the universe and its contents?
Where is your explanation of the mechanisms used by 'Mother Nature' to craft the universe and its contents? Vague references to "natural processes"
just won't cut it. Especially if the processes being referred to have a desctructive long-term effect that tears down rather than builds up
(considering that the machinery and technnology of life is part of "its contents").
“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true,
notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more
accurate, or liable to exceptions,
This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)
The process or mechanism of creation (engineering, construction) is a logical, rational and sufficient causal explanation for the origin of (systems
of) machinery and technology, any machinery and technology; as this type of logic (including and based on general induction) has been used for
centuries in the field of archaeology in order to tell the difference between what is caused by (the forces of) nature exclusively and what has an
intelligent (human) cause (and then affected by natural processes afterwards).
Archaeologists draw conclusions about earlier civilizations, often from items that have lain buried for thousands of years. Imagine, for example, that
an archaeologist has unearthed dozens of carefully cut stone blocks of precisely the same size neatly aligned on top of one another. They are also set
out in a distinct geometric pattern that does not occur naturally. What would the archaeologist conclude? Would he attribute his find to coincidence?
Most likely not. Rather, he would interpret it as evidence of past human activities, and that would be a reasonable conclusion.
To be consistent, should we not apply the same reasoning to the design manifest in the natural world? Many people have taken that view, including
Years ago, British mathematician, physicist, and astronomer Sir James Jeans wrote that in the light of advancing scientific knowledge, “the universe
begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.” He also stated that “the universe appears to have been designed by a pure
mathematician” and that it provides “evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own individual
Other scientists have arrived at a similar conclusion since Jeans penned those words. “The overall organization of the universe has suggested to
many a modern astronomer an element of design,” wrote physicist Paul Davies. One of the most famous physicists and mathematicians of all time,
Albert Einstein, wrote: “The fact that [the natural world] is comprehensible is a miracle.” In the eyes of many, that miracle includes life
itself, from its fundamental building blocks to the amazing human brain.
Is it reasonable to attribute such perfection of design and organization to blind chance? If you were to stumble across a highly technical manual a
million pages thick and written in an efficient, elegant code, would you conclude that the book somehow wrote itself? What if that book were so small
that you needed a powerful microscope to read it? And what if it contained precise instructions for the manufacture of a self-repairing,
self-replicating intelligent machine with billions of parts, all of which had to be fitted together at precisely the right time and in the right way?
To be sure, the notion that such a book just happened would not even enter one’s mind.
After examining current research on the inner workings of the cell, British philosopher Antony Flew, once a leading champion of atheism, stated:
“The almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), [show] that intelligence must have been involved.”
Flew believes in “following the argument no matter where it leads.” In his case it led to a complete change in thinking, so that he now believes
The human brain too leaves many scientists in awe. A product of DNA, the brain has been described as “the most complicated object in the
universe.” Even the most advanced supercomputer looks positively primitive next to this approximately three-pound pinkish-gray mass of neurons and
other structures. In the opinion of one neuroscientist, the more that scientists learn about the brain and the mind, “the more magnificent and
unknowable it becomes.”
Consider: The brain enables us to breathe, laugh, cry, solve puzzles, build computers, ride a bicycle, write poetry, and look up at the night sky with
a sense of reverential awe. Is it reasonable—indeed, consistent—to attribute these abilities and capacities to blind evolutionary forces?
I know how you feel about it, but I can't find the logic or reason behind your dogmatic assertions, or if lucky enough to get one, your arguments
supporting that view. Our Creator has given us the “intellectual capacity” to investigate the world around us and to find satisfying answers to
our questions. (1 John 5:20) In this regard, physicist and Nobel laureate William D. Phillips wrote: “When I examine the orderliness,
understandability, and beauty of the universe, I am led to the conclusion that a higher intelligence designed what I see. My scientific appreciation
of the coherence, and the delightful simplicity of physics strengthens my belief in God.”
Two prominent scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, admittedly were ‘driven by logic’ to conclude that there must be a Creator.
Though Wickramasinghe and Hoyle continue to believe that evolution controls the development of life forms, their calculations of the odds against life
itself starting spontaneously moved the professors to write: “Once we see . . . that the probability of life, originating at random is so utterly
minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect
‘deliberate,’ ” or created.
edit on 18-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)