Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact.

reply to post by noobfun



As to the first point. I most likley should have used the term "specefied" in place of "organized". In which case you arguement from snowflakes and crystalization have little to do with objecting to my case. Virtually all athiest and thiest scientists agree on this. When looking for signs of intelligent design both specification and complexity are needed in order to draw these conclusion. Most scientists (including Richard Dawkins) will conclude that both of these criteria are necessary and sufficient to support the case of ID. However most athiest will argue that specification and complexity are not exhibited despite the anthropic principle. I will accept fault for poor choice of wording to illustrate my first point.

Next, you combined the 1st sentence my second paragraph with the last sentence of my first paragraph. It may have been my fault that I didn't indent and only used the "enter" key to create a space betweent he paragraphs. But it has led to a faulty understanding of my arguement. My point is that that SETI searches for signals of FAR less complexity than what we find in life, or in the basic laws of the universe and how they are interrelated. Based on these signals, they conclude that the origin of that "message" must have been intelligent. Likewise, if we find structures on Mars or any other planet, those structures will be deemed produced by intelligence if they are specefied and complex.

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Works better for Destroyists. Intelligent life evolves on lots of planets, but an evil race of aliens is out there to get it. The lack of observed signals pretty much proves it.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

It doesn't disprove your story. You are right.

I have a name for my "magic man".

What do you call yours?

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

why do we have a universe as opposed no existence at all?

Because a Christian god created it some 6000 years ago so he could kill lots of humans so that he could send himself here to die so he could love all humans who believed in him and send all the ones that didn't to Hell. I mean isn't it obvious?

Thats not my interpetation, but it sounds more reasonable than many I have read.

Do you seriously expect to find a reasonable answer for your question?

Its the question that you are left with. ultimatley any naturalist is left with simply answering "it just is" with no prior source or cause. Why is it just so? IT gets back to my original point, each side is left with an unexplainable conundrum. Now which unexplainable conundrum provides the simplest solution to answering the question of why the universe is as we see it today?

We have the Universe, because given enough time everything that can happen, will happen.

why are we "given enough time"? Where does time come from? and why does anything happen? why is it even possible for things to "happen"?
what force cuases "happenings"?

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I have a name for my "magic man".

What do you call yours?

Shadows

Originally posted by hulkbacker
Its the question that you are left with. ultimatley any naturalist is left with simply answering "it just is" with no prior source or cause. Why is it just so? IT gets back to my original point, each side is left with an unexplainable conundrum. Now which unexplainable conundrum provides the simplest solution to answering the question of why the universe is as we see it today?

Exactly. Both sides are left with "THE UNKNOWN" when we trace it back to the singularity that is Abiogenesis.

We have a belief/explanation for "THE UNKNOWN", they won't admit there is an "UNKNOWN". Until BOTH sides agree there is an "UNKNOWN" we'll never get anywhere.

If you do admit there is an "UNKNOWN", then you must have a "belief" that something (Natural/Unnatural Cause) made it happen.

So in the end we both have to believe something we can't prove and have no evidence for.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
So in the end we both have to believe something we can't prove.

Can't really prove anything in the real sense, what we can do is show that abiogenesis by natural means is a real live possibility, show how it could happen, and even do it again.

Whilst you have nothing but shadows.

ABE: for an edit..

and have no evidence for

But one has the real possibility of producing it. Indeed, wacky scientists are working deep in their bunkers right now to provide, I'm sure. The pieces of the jigsaw are being uncovered.

While others are burning incense, sacrificing pigs, and reading fleabitten texts.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by B.A.C.

So in the end we both have to believe something we can't prove and have no evidence for.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

I'd say there's evidence for abiogenesis. Further more abiogenesis might be possible to disprove. How about god? Can you disprove god? Please tell me how? All you need to do to disprove the current theory of evolution is to dig up a 500 million year old fossilised rabbit or show that the Universe can't possibly be billions of years old. That's all you need to do. Now tell me, what does it take to disprove god?

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
I'd say there's evidence for abiogenesis. Further more abiogenesis might be possible to disprove. How about god? Can you disprove god? Please tell me how? All you need to do to disprove the current theory of evolution is to dig up a 500 million year old fossilised rabbit or show that the Universe can't possibly be billions of years old. That's all you need to do. Now tell me, what does it take to disprove god?
[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Is it possible to disprove the existence of God? I like that question. Nope.

Would it be possible to disprove the Bible if it isn't true? Yes. We have to be clear if we are talking about The Creation Story: Genesis, or God.

Science is built on facts, I agree. You can't disprove facts. You CAN disprove theories though.

Is the idea of God falsifiable? We have to work backwards on this one, because we have to assume he exists to answer this.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by hulkbacker
why are we "given enough time"? Where does time come from? and why does anything happen? why is it even possible for things to "happen"?
what force cuases "happenings"?

If you think there's anything to quantum theory then technically speaking there is nothing but vibrations. If there's nothing then there is no time and also no happenings. It's just an illusion. Yeah I know. Why the vibrations then? Logic fails at this point. Can we ask, why wouldn't there be vibrations?

Originally posted by Fundie

The equation is usually written:

N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L

Sounds scientific right? Well lets put in what each variable is huh

no but it does look mathamatic, unless you hear text

Oops… EVERY single variable requires ASSUMPTIONS. Not one- EVERY one!

wow your really doing well here

yes we know it a theoretic equation on probability

meaning using none exact data, to get a none exact answer

1+1 isnt probability

although thanks to hubble the variables used can start to be more accuratley altered now we are starting to realise just how abundant the number of planets are and the amount of organic molecules and compounds detected in space is rising too also adding to the variables

sorry where did i say it was based on exact data? didnt sorry said probable

LMAO… so what you are saying after all the postulating you do about assumptions is that it is fine for evolutionists to use bogus unreliable assumption laden methods to further your cause… but not anyone else?

no not at all, why? becaue its using asumption to speculate on what could be not using assumption to state what anyone wants to pretend IS (in thier opinion)

like the assumption a designer is required, it doesnt speculate there could be one it states as fact there is one

so stating assumption is fact is still a no no

This is classic of an Evo showing supposed ‘good’ evidence to support their stance…

ummm sorry i said it was evidence where?

just stated that intelligent or any life foun in the univere at large would not in anyway infringe upon the atheistic view point a it would the thiestic

if they exist they are natural not supernatural entities

so i didnt state it was accurate data, or evidence, or that assumption is valid substitute for facts and data either .... making things up ... tut tut fundie

EX 23:1
Mar 10:19

[edit on 9/3/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Exactly. Both sides are left with "THE UNKNOWN" when we trace it back to the singularity that is Abiogenesis.

We have a belief/explanation for "THE UNKNOWN", they won't admit there is an "UNKNOWN". Until BOTH sides agree there is an "UNKNOWN" we'll never get anywhere.

If you do admit there is an "UNKNOWN", then you must have a "belief" that something (Natural/Unnatural Cause) made it happen.

So in the end we both have to believe something we can't prove and have no evidence for.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

I'm personally focusing on the origin of the all existence. not just life. I know this thread is concerned with evolutions vs creationism. But if it can be established that the most logical worldview for explaining our current universe is theism. Then it follows that occums razor will show that theism is the easiest solution to life. Personally I am unconcerned with what means God used to form life, only that he gets the credit.
However, I do think that once naturalism falls, the next logical step would be for "naturalistic evolution" to also fall.

Originally posted by iWork4NWO


If you think there's anything to quantum theory then technically speaking there is nothing but vibrations. If there's nothing then there is no time and also no happenings. It's just an illusion. Yeah I know. Why the vibrations then? Logic fails at this point. Can we ask, why wouldn't there be vibrations?

It seems like a logical question. One that each side is left to contend with. A naturalist that subscribes to quantum theory would have to ask, why are there vibrations as opposed to no vibrations?
One day, we may discover where those vibrations come from. But that will only lead to another "why?".

A theist would have to ask why is there a God as opposed to no God?

My point is that each side is reduced to something unexplainable.
But once that "unexplainable ultimate cause" is reached. which unexplainable cause is the simplest solution as to why our universe is the way it is?

At the VERY BEST, I think naturalism can only hope for a stalemate on this question. But to do this, one would have to demonstrate that from whatever "Ultimate cause" is attributed in naturalism, the ONLY possible outcome we could have had, is the outcome we have now. IF not, it only begs the question, "why this outcome as opposed to another?" In which case one must still refer to theism or re-examine thier "Ultimate cause".
Even if we get a stalemate on the "logical ultimate cuase" , when you begin to throw in more personal aspects such as "is there any meaning behind who I am and what I do?" I think Theism answers that question far more convincingly.

Originally posted by hulkbacker
Then it follows that occums razor will show that theism is the easiest solution to life.

Incorrect. Creator god is the most complex solution of them all. Ultimate boeing 747 and all that..

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

reply to post by noobfun

so i didnt state it was accurate data, or evidence, or that assumption is valid substitute for facts and data either .... making things up ... tut tut fundie

Really?

why on earth would we object to someone making first contact, probability states there almost certainly life out there somewhere and theres a reasonable chance some of that is intelligent

And your source? .. and you stated it was how accurate then?

sorry what dilema? that life outside the earth may exist,
drake equation as stated says its ALMOST GUARANTEED to be there somewhere ..... unless you think naturalit have some object fear of probability and statistics working?

(my bold and caps added)

LOL.. cracks me up


EX 23:1 …. Couldn’t agree with you more
Mar 10:19 … again rhetorical … so why don’t you follow this and all the other stuff?

Pity you don’t read more… instead of a pathetic lame way of using the Bible and bits you like to supposedly support your case. Don’t go into theology, you are obviously unlearned… makes you look more foolish than you already are.

LOL.. you evos will do anything to backpedal and rationalize the rubbish you spin… even when its clear you are wrong.



[edit on 9-3-2009 by Fundie]

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by hulkbacker
Then it follows that occums razor will show that theism is the easiest solution to life.

Incorrect. Creator god is the most complex solution of them all. Ultimate boeing 747 and all that..

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Aye, big problem isn't it. You see they state necessities like this...

Originally posted by hulkbacker
...What do you expect the results to be? I think you would agree that the one with the most intelligence would produce the most complexity and order. The least intelligent would likley produce the least ordered and complex.
Now, its fairly clear that our universe is ordered and complex. Its also fairly clear that life is ordered and complex. We can assume from observation that intelligence is needed for order and complexity. SETI uses this very criteria when searching for signals sent from intelligent life.

and then pull this magical intelligent thing from their anus that listens to people's whines, moans, hopes and wishes, provides santa-like decisions, and makes whole complex ordered universes, lol.

The ultimate intelligent complexity.

Can't even keep up with the consequences of own arguments. Like reverse Einsteins.

Lovely-jubbly.

ABE: and the next move is to say 'noa wayz, my intelligent complexity just exists, sayz so in me little buk', lol.

Occams Razor in action



[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


In your mind I guess there is a "they" and "us", but really we ALL are the same intellectually.

We all use the same type of arguments. We all are guilty of mistakes in our arguments.

We choose to believe in God, in your eyes I guess this makes us inferior? That's a dangerous little bit of reasoning you do there.

Why all the belief motivated insults? If someones argument is flawed, let's talk about that and leave ANYONE'S belief out of it.

Lot's of this stuff is more Philosophical than Science.

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by hulkbacker
Then it follows that occums razor will show that theism is the easiest solution to life.

Incorrect. Creator god is the most complex solution of them all. Ultimate boeing 747 and all that..

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

This is where Dawkins' logic fails him. Its another way of saying "where did God come from?" which is impossible to answer. Nor would any true theist try, because he/she recognizes that as the "Ultimate cause".
The problem Dawkins doesn't notice OR refuses to see is that he is left with the same problem when it comes to his "Ultimate Cause", whatever that may be. Why this or why that?
Either one, God or the naturalists "Ultimate cause". is impossible to explain by a prior cause, or else it fails the definition of "ultimate cause".
They each simply "Just are". or as God put it "I AM".

No one impossible thing is more impossibe than any other impossible thing. the 747 arguement only applies to the improbable, not the "impossible."

Again we are left with 2 unexplainables. The naturalists' "singularity" or whatever they conclude as the "Ultimate cause" is no more likley, nor is it more "possible", than the theists' God.

So each one must PRESUME an unexplainable, "impossible" truth.
Which of those truths which is the most simple way to answer the question as to why existence is as it is?

Originally posted by B.A.C.

We choose to believe in God, in your eyes I guess this makes us inferior? That's a dangerous little bit of reasoning you do there.

Most believers didn't choose to believe in God. Instead their parents along with their religious institutions made that choice for them by means of a brainwash.

Originally posted by hulkbacker
No one impossible thing is more impossibe than any other impossible thing. the 747 arguement only applies to the improbable, not the "impossible."

Clearly it's not impossible as it has happened. Thus probabilities apply and God loses.

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Most believers didn't choose to believe in God. Instead their parents along with their religious institutions made that choice for them by means of a brainwash.

That's another dangerous idea.

At some point in an adults life THEY must decide, no matter what they have been taught.

Same goes for Evolutionists that have been raised in a religious home, they come to the belief they come to on their own.

Everyone is responsible for their belief. Not an institution.