2 proofs that nature was designed

[Rachel20]

Anthony Flew "the world's greatest atheist" that no atheist had ever heard of and has no background in science?

First part of your sentence is false. Second part is an appeal to authority. Did you even consider Flews point ?

 

[Speedwell]

First part of your sentence is false. Second part is an appeal to authority. Did you even consider Flews point ?

Flew is a deist and his point is a metaphysical one. His attraction to IDism is that of a non-scientist so is of little interest to this forum, where the existence of God is not really an issue.

 

[Rachel20]

Flew is a deist and his point is a metaphysical one. His attraction to IDism is that of a non-scientist so is of little interest to this forum, where the existence of God is not really an issue.

The forum is "Creation & Evolution"

 

[Speedwell]

The forum is "Creation & Evolution"

Your point being? The forum is "Creation & Evolution" not "Creation vs. Evolution." Many people who believe sincerely that God exists and is author of our being have no particular issue with evolution. Further, most Traditional Christians, regardless of their take on evolution, have rejected ID.

 

[Rachel20]

Your point being? The forum is "Creation & Evolution" not "Creation vs. Evolution." Many people who believe sincerely that God exists and is author of our being have no particular issue with evolution. Further, most Traditional Christians, regardless of their take on evolution, have rejected ID.

I was curious about Flews observation. Being unsure whether it were true and if there might be counter-examples to refute it - I threw it on the thread to see if it drew any answers that would help. So far though, I'm only getting comments about God or Flew. I'll try a different thread one of these days.

 

[Speedwell]

I was curious about Flews observation. Being unsure whether it were true and if there might be counter-examples to refute it - I threw it on the thread to see if it drew any answers that would help. So far though, I'm only getting comments about God or Flew. I'll try a different thread one of these days.

Start one.

 

[dlamberth]

Creative imagination is the only phenomena which can solve this paradox

Remove the word "imagination", and I think you are closer to truth. This Creation is Creative. And with infinite possibilities. No need for imagination or intelligence concepts or change of physical laws. Being Creative, Creation is more of what it is than what it does. Though we like to define Creation more as what it does.

 

[tas8831]

Creative imagination, the capacity to act according to imagined future events, rather than merely reacting to past ones

Like when the Jehovah reacted to the whole apple thing - that was actually an imagined future event?

This is a capability unique to a conscious mind that can most certainly achieve things that would be impossible otherwise.

Creationists thrive on mere assertion.

 

[tas8831]

Agreed- 'planning ahead' is as good away to describe the phenomena as any and can apply to any conscious intelligence- including God

Begging the question is cool.

 

[tas8831]

well objectively this comes around to the information question again, information representing an anticipated consequence.

So show this to us in a genome.

Here you go:

UCSC Genome Browser Home

 

[tas8831]

e.g. we can falsify the claim that a watch needs a little man inside to turn the hands. So falsifying the need for a watchmaker is similarly possible in theory, just not in practice

Of course we know watches are made by humans.

 

[tas8831]

A lot of things, but one of the first seeds of doubt came when trying to demonstrate the efficacy of the Darwinian algorithm with a computer program to a skeptical friend (he was a surgeon and I couldn't believe he could doubt Darwinian evolution- but apparently most doctors are skeptical of it by some polls). I'm not saying I managed to soundly debunk Darwinism in one go, I just proved to myself, that it didn't work the way I intuitively thought it would- which got me looking into it more.

There's something very humbling about arguing with a computer!

Yeah, golly, I mean life operates EXACTLY like a computer...

 

[dlamberth]

How does one define/measure this information? How does this information represent an impossibility vis-a-vis natural forces?

That would be "Creative" natural forces which add a whole level of fun.

 

[tas8831]

First part of your sentence is false. Second part is an appeal to authority. Did you even consider Flews point ?

LOL!

"as he said you never find information in nature that doesn't have a mind behind it (and he considered DNA information)."

He said that. And he considered DNA - a molecule - to "be information."

And you want me to address his "point"?

The "world's greatest atheist".....

 

[Rachel20]

And you want me to address his "point"?

Not really, now that I doubt you can.

 

[xianghua]

I answered this earlier.


Without definitions, coherent communication is impossible - as you so clearly demonstrate.

so how you will define a watch?

 

[xianghua]

A penguin is not a robot.

why?

 

[xianghua]

Why should it be?

because its a robot you know...

 

[Speedwell]

so how you will define a watch?

A man-made device for telling time intended to be worn or carried about the person.

 

[Speedwell]

why?

A robot is a machine that resembles a living creature in being capable of moving independently and performing complex actions.