- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,161
- 51,516
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Three squared.What does the color Nine smell like?
Upvote
0
Three squared.What does the color Nine smell like?
But here we are & naturalistic explanations are going Great at answering these questions without having to posit an unevidenced omnipotent being.It seems to me that those who are denying that design is showing in the cosmos and our existence are not understanding the great complexity, how much of it there is, with orderliness, and all working so well. Even a little incremental difference in a number of parameters would have none of us or anything known about of existence possible.
So, is it better to have, a correct answer, or a made-up answer?Three squared.
So, is it better to have, a correct answer, or a made-up answer?
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Do you think that Eid al-Adha is spiritual evidence that Islam is correct? No? Then why should I consider for a second that Christmas is evidence that Christianity is correct?
It seems to me that those who are denying that design is showing in the cosmos and our existence are not understanding the great complexity
, how much of it there is, with orderliness, and all working so well. Even a little incremental difference in a number of parameters would have none of us or anything known about of existence possible.
One could even argue that since the complexity is constructed from simplicity it is inherently simple even though it expresses as complex. Why such complexity should emerge is an interesting question, perhaps better reserved for philosophy than science, but going to the default of "It was God" is rather precipitate. I prefer the default "Well, it's got me flummoxed."Get it into your skulls people: complexity is NOT an indicator of artificial design. It simply isn't.
Question begging.Gears. Gears are designed things.
Biological gears can't [be explained].
Randomness and small changes. interesting - tell me about your background in genetics.There is no randomness and small changes in The genetic code required for a Sombrero to form.
We shall see.You seem to be comparing apples to oranges.
Gears in general?Regardless the cause, all I'm asking here is are gears designed?
Prove that the gears in the planthopper are designed by man.Ok. Prove it.
1. that the gears you showed are designed by man
2. that the gears on the planthoppers legs aren't designed.
Alternatively we understand that complexity can emerge from a few simple rules, forces and fundamental constants. The geometry of a beehive appears to be designed, but its origin, though fascinating, is not the consequence of design.It seems to me that those who are denying that design is showing in the cosmos and our existence are not understanding the great complexity, how much of it there is, with orderliness, and all working so well.
So what? Your view appears to be nothing more than anthropomorphic arrogance.Even a little incremental difference in a number of parameters would have none of us or anything known about of existence possible.
Since you have no other universe to compare it with I would be fascinated to hear how you know it is working well.It seems to me ... and all working so well.
Hello?Prove that the gears in the planthopper are designed by man.
Given that the only thing we know of that designs gears are humans, you have your work cut out for you.
It seems to me that those who are denying that design is showing in the cosmos and our existence are not understanding the great complexity, how much of it there is, with orderliness, and all working so well. Even a little incremental difference in a number of parameters would have none of us or anything known about of existence possible.
Bugeyedcreepy said:But here we are & naturalistic explanations are going Great at answering these questions without having to posit an unevidenced omnipotent being.
TagliatelliMonster said:Please, can we finally put this falsehood to rest??
Non-natural design is NOT determined by "levels" of complexity.
I can design something wich is very simple and nature can produce something wich is very complex. And if you think about it for more then 3 seconds, I'm completely positive that you can easily find an example of both.
Get it into your skulls people: complexity is NOT an indicator of artificial design. It simply isn't.
Yea yea... "if things were different then things would be different".
Talk about a useless tautology...
Ophiolite said:Alternatively we understand that complexity can emerge from a few simple rules, forces and fundamental constants. The geometry of a beehive appears to be designed, but its origin, though fascinating, is not the consequence of design.
So what? Your view appears to be nothing more than anthropomorphic arrogance.
Since you have no other universe to compare it with I would be fascinated to hear how you know it is working well.
As was just said, we have no other universes to compare with to say that our universe is unlikely - that's why it's often called the appearance of fine tuning. We don't know if the parameters could be different, whether they are different in other parts of the universe or multiverse, or whether quite different forms of life could result if they were different. We don't yet know, and we may never know; you can imagine all you like, but your preferred origin myth is just one of many such imaginative constructions in history.Excuse me? You don't have any other universes to show, and one with just the parameters to turn out to be a universe that works is not at all likely, and there is no known cause for those independent parameters to be what they are.
That clearly divided my statement so you could argue against complexity being basis for knowing of God, when what I really said was regarding how much of it there is, with orderliness, and all working so well. With however much complexity you can come up with, you can't have it work as well as you, and certainly not with it presuming it can know the truth.